undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgreatgib11mo ago0 comments

It all depends if the code was copied for a big part or just snippets.

0 comments

But it doesn't here! You are totally allowed to completely copy an MIT file, modify it and add your copyright to it!

You should just keep the copyright that is already present in the file! But in the case of Spegel, I don't think that the files contain a copyright header in the first place.

TheOtherHobbes11mo ago

Nonsense. Copyright is implicit and assigned on creation.

The git history has a clear trail showing author and contributor details.

An explicit copyright notice for every file isn't needed.

This is a straightforward, unquestionable license violation, and no amount of corporate FUD will change that.

palata11mo ago

You're talking about copyright, I'm talking about attribution.

Of course, the author keeps their copyright on the lines of code. But that's completely different from how the attribution should be done.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

palata11mo ago

But it doesn't here! You are totally allowed to completely copy an MIT file, modify it and add your copyright to it!

You should just keep the copyright that is already present in the file! But in the case of Spegel, I don't think that the files contain a copyright header in the first place.

TheOtherHobbes11mo ago

Nonsense. Copyright is implicit and assigned on creation.

The git history has a clear trail showing author and contributor details.

An explicit copyright notice for every file isn't needed.

This is a straightforward, unquestionable license violation, and no amount of corporate FUD will change that.

palata11mo ago

You're talking about copyright, I'm talking about attribution.

Of course, the author keeps their copyright on the lines of code. But that's completely different from how the attribution should be done.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse