undefined | Better HN

0 pointsweinzierl1y ago0 comments

"What's wrong is the bait and switch,[..]"

Morally wrong, legally not so much. If it is under a permissive license (and it was MIT originally as others have pointed out) you can always cut a proprietary version.

That doesn't take away the right to use the permissively licensed code of course.

0 comments

bad_user1y ago

> Morally wrong, legally not so much

Of course, but then, the legality of it is irrelevant.

Free markets work because consumers can exercise their freedom to choose, and in such instances it's easy, given that the reason for why many such projects see wide adoption is their FOSS nature.

dspillett1y ago

> Free markets work because consumers can exercise their freedom to choose

That only works if the consumer is fully informed.

In the case of bait & switch sometimes the switch happens without them being informed and/or without giving them chance to cancel/uninstall/whatever.

cratermoon1y ago

Just a reminder: https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/

buttercraft1y ago

What about this clause: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software"

It sounds like they went out of the way to remove that copyright notice. Am I misinterpreting that part?

Genuinely curious since this stuff affects me....

oynqr1y ago

As the original Copyright holder, you can do that. It just doesn't make the old Apache licensed version disappear.

lmm1y ago

Only if they do hold all the copyrights. If they've removed the notices from other people's open-source contributions (and don't have a CLA or similar that permits them to do so) then that's copyright infringement.

buttercraft1y ago

I thought the MIT license was the original one?

cmcaleer1y ago

It was Apache2, see this (preserved) fork.

https://github.com/Dramaga11/vsc-material-theme/blob/main/LI...

TZubiri1y ago

Changing the historical agreement is fraud.

If he edited the repo history to edit the licence that is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bad_user1y ago

> Morally wrong, legally not so much

Of course, but then, the legality of it is irrelevant.

Free markets work because consumers can exercise their freedom to choose, and in such instances it's easy, given that the reason for why many such projects see wide adoption is their FOSS nature.

dspillett1y ago

> Free markets work because consumers can exercise their freedom to choose

That only works if the consumer is fully informed.

In the case of bait & switch sometimes the switch happens without them being informed and/or without giving them chance to cancel/uninstall/whatever.

cratermoon1y ago

Just a reminder: https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/

buttercraft1y ago

What about this clause: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software"

It sounds like they went out of the way to remove that copyright notice. Am I misinterpreting that part?

Genuinely curious since this stuff affects me....

oynqr1y ago

As the original Copyright holder, you can do that. It just doesn't make the old Apache licensed version disappear.

lmm1y ago

buttercraft1y ago

I thought the MIT license was the original one?

cmcaleer1y ago

It was Apache2, see this (preserved) fork.

https://github.com/Dramaga11/vsc-material-theme/blob/main/LI...

TZubiri1y ago

Changing the historical agreement is fraud.

If he edited the repo history to edit the licence that is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse