Every 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.
A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
11–20 of 309 posts
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, an…
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, an…
No need to be condescending with phrasing like "It would not take you long to read it".
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#14Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#15Every 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…
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#16Every 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.
The author's comments are quite enlightening of their incomplete understanding of the licenses they use:
> nanocolors implementation and API are the same as
> Colorette. You essentially pirated my work.
After using a license that explicitly allows others to take their work, it's suprising the author thinks that someone "pirated" their work.
Hopefully this signals the start of an awakening within the JS ecosystem, with more and more developers switching to licenses like the GPL that actually respect the developers.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#17The author of the fork immediately complied and had likely just made a mistake in a hastily published fork. I suspect the original author was more frustrated with the fork existing.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#18Frankly 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.
The issue only being resolved [1] when public shame was involved should close this case.
1 - https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/blob/main/COPYRIGHT#L1-L3
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to be condescending with phrasing like "It would not take you long to read it".
That was necessary to demonstrate that there was no need to falsely recall it. You could just read it. It's three lines, takes about thirty seconds to read carefully, and would have saved you the trouble of posting misinformation.
I did not claim I was "sure", which is the point of "IIRC". Calling this misinformation is a bit exaggerated.
You can choose to be kind.
Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod
#20I spend virtually my entire workday in a terminal, and I’ve never once needed a CLI tool written in JS. Where is all this code going?