Yep. While maybe it's "not cool," (I guess, depending on how much work Delve did in their fork, in which case it could be "totally cool"), there is no legal problem with doing this and if someone is "blowing the whistle" about this, they don't really understand open source.

▲

solid_fuel an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> there is no legal problem with doing this

They are explicitly forbidden from doing this without attribution. So yes, there is a legal problem with this. All they needed to do to avoid that was provide attribution, but Delve was staffed with such morally bankrupt and incompetent individuals that they couldn't even do that.

▲

mvkel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Replying to my own comment -- didn't realize it was Apache, thought it was MIT. Flame on!!

▲

mrgoldenbrown 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is there no legal problem with violating the license terms, which explicitly require attribution?

	▲	NewJazz 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not a copyright violation because the readme says open source somewhere!!! /s

▲

nickvec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You clearly did not read the article. Why post something so confidently when you're not even informed on the topic?

▲

malcolmgreaves 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> A permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices.