3 ms·
Yep. While maybe it's "not cool," (I guess, depending on how much work Delve did in their fork, in which case it could be "totally cool"), there is no legal pro
by mvkel 6mo ago
Yep. While maybe it's "not cool," (I guess, depending on how much work Delve did in their fork, in which case it could be "totally cool"), there is no legal problem with doing this and if someone is "blowing the whistle" about this, they don't really understand open source.
- malcolmgreaves 6mo ago> A permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices.
- mrgoldenbrown 6mo agoHow is there no legal problem with violating the license terms, which explicitly require attribution?
- NewJazz 6mo agoIt's not a copyright violation because the readme says open source somewhere!!! /s
- nickvec 6mo agoYou clearly did not read the article. Why post something so confidently when you're not even informed on the topic?
- solid_fuel 6mo ago> there is no legal problem with doing this They are explicitly forbidden from doing this without attribution. So yes, there is a legal problem with this. All they needed to do to avoid that was provide attribution, but Delve was staffed with such morally bankrupt and incompetent individuals that they couldn't even do that.
- mvkel 6mo agoReplying to my own comment -- didn't realize it was Apache, thought it was MIT. Flame on!!
- elashri 6mo agoBut MIT also requires Attribution, it is actually the only thing asked in MIT licence.