7 ms·

> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. I did find this amusing. The irony

> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. I did find this amusing. The irony is strong with this one, although they have some valid points expanded on in the Reddit post linked. Comment from a contributor on the time4popcorn repo: I am also waiting for a reply. You guys just copy other people's work and don't even give them proper credits... if you decide to start coding I could put you back in. Not if you keep stealing though.

kluivers 12y ago
Question is: what license is that work released under (GPL3?) and does that license require attribution?
- mkesper 12y ago
  Almost all licenses require attribution, at least at the file level.
  - rmc 12y ago
    Not the GPL. GNU & RMS used to complain about the attribution requirement of the original BSD licences.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      The GPL does require attribution. It was the advertising clause of the older BSD licenses (similar to the one used by OpenSSL) that was problematic for the GPL, because it imposed restrictions on activities not directly connected to the software. You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it. There is nothing in the GPL that requires preserving upstream copyright notices in downstream modified versions of software, or any other form of attribution of the origin of modified versions; it does require "appropriate copyright notice", but since copyright on a derived work rests with the creator of the derivative, the modifiers copyright would appear to suffice for that for modified works. The GPL explicitly prohibits attributing modified works to the creators of the upstream work (as it requires you to include notification of your modification and a relevant date).
        belorn 12y ago
        provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty Removing notices can be very dangerous, and should not be done without legal advice. The default way to include GPL is to also have an absence of warranty, which is explicitly required to keep intact in modified version.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        Removing notices can be a crime subject to a fine: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#d http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#d
        mkesper 12y ago
        Copyright itself requires it.
- espadrine 12y ago
  GPLv3. It doesn't require attribution, unless specified by the authors alongside the license. They didn't specify that requirement. Nothing on the Readme, no additional information on the License file, nothing in the code files. > you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms […] [r]equiring preservation of […] author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it

kluivers 12y ago

Question is: what license is that work released under (GPL3?) and does that license require attribution?

mkesper 12y ago
Almost all licenses require attribution, at least at the file level.
- rmc 12y ago
  Not the GPL. GNU & RMS used to complain about the attribution requirement of the original BSD licences.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    The GPL does require attribution. It was the advertising clause of the older BSD licenses (similar to the one used by OpenSSL) that was problematic for the GPL, because it imposed restrictions on activities not directly connected to the software. You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it. There is nothing in the GPL that requires preserving upstream copyright notices in downstream modified versions of software, or any other form of attribution of the origin of modified versions; it does require "appropriate copyright notice", but since copyright on a derived work rests with the creator of the derivative, the modifiers copyright would appear to suffice for that for modified works. The GPL explicitly prohibits attributing modified works to the creators of the upstream work (as it requires you to include notification of your modification and a relevant date).
      - belorn 12y ago
        provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty Removing notices can be very dangerous, and should not be done without legal advice. The default way to include GPL is to also have an absence of warranty, which is explicitly required to keep intact in modified version.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        Removing notices can be a crime subject to a fine: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#d http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#d
      - mkesper 12y ago
        Copyright itself requires it.
espadrine 12y ago
GPLv3. It doesn't require attribution, unless specified by the authors alongside the license. They didn't specify that requirement. Nothing on the Readme, no additional information on the License file, nothing in the code files. > you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms […] [r]equiring preservation of […] author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it