A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
1–10 of 309 posts
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#2There’s a discussion about this in GitHub:
https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#3It looks like nanocolors is a fork of colorette with a few (substantial?) changes, see https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes. However, the author of nanocolors, Andrey Sitnik, only added attribution info about colorette after Jorge Bucaran went public about the fork on Twitter. If the fork had attributed colorette from the start, would there be drama here?
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#4It looks like nanocolors is a fork of colorette with a few (substantial?) changes, see https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes . However, the author of nanocolors, Andrey Sitnik, only added attribution info about colorette after Jorge Bucaran went public about the fork on Twitter. If the fork had attributed colorette from the start, would there be drama here?
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#5Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#6Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
I was going to say this.
IIRC, the MIT license does not require attribution (EDIT: it does)
Most people do not understand the philosophy of Open Source. It's not "hey look at me, I made this, look at me".
They should not give liberties to other people if they don't want them to use it.
EDIT: Seeing the comments to this one, this should be seen as a proof of Cunningham's Law[1]
[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_LawRe: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#7Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
I was going to say this. IIRC, the MIT license does not require attribution (EDIT: it does) Most people do not understand the philosophy of Open Source. It's not "hey look at me, I made this, look at me". They should not give liberties to other people if they don't want them to use it. EDIT: Seeing the comments to this one, this should be seen as a proof of Cunningham's Law[1] [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cu…
You should really read the MIT license text again. It's 3 paragraphs...
They're also not saying that they weren't allowed to fork it. Just that it was an asshole move, and in community efforts that matters too. The exact same thing could happen with a GPL project, no difference license-wise.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#8Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
I was going to say this. IIRC, the MIT license does not require attribution (EDIT: it does) Most people do not understand the philosophy of Open Source. It's not "hey look at me, I made this, look at me". They should not give liberties to other people if they don't want them to use it. EDIT: Seeing the comments to this one, this should be seen as a proof of Cunningham's Law[1] [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cu…
It's literally three lines of actual content. It would not take you long to read it.
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright © 2021
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
He was violating the license until 19 hours ago: https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/commit/1d86f02ca751ad8c113c...
The MIT license is a bad license but in this case the terms of it were clearly being violated by a hostile actor.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#9Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
I was going to say this. IIRC, the MIT license does not require attribution (EDIT: it does) Most people do not understand the philosophy of Open Source. It's not "hey look at me, I made this, look at me". They should not give liberties to other people if they don't want them to use it. EDIT: Seeing the comments to this one, this should be seen as a proof of Cunningham's Law[1] [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cu…
From the MIT license:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
It clearly requires attribution.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#10Frankly I do not appreciate most of the comments in that thread by others, a lot of then border on or enter "victim blaming", and others are straight up gaslighting, either intentionally or through negligence. Totally unhelpful to "OpenSource" to take this kind of attitude toward people when the terms of their license are exploited.