|
| ▲ | flohofwoe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| MIT License requires 'attribution', e.g. at the very least the original copyright notice and license text (which tbf is the case in aloshdenny's copy because he left the LICENSE.md intact (or just forgot to "clean up"). |
|
| ▲ | austinthetaco 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this is completely and totally incorrect. MIT lets you redistribute, copy, and modify. It does not let you take authorship over the original work, even if just by way of changing git history. |
| |
| ▲ | blochist an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | This is untrue and if you thought about what you're claiming for a second this should be obvious. The MIT license let's someone do any of the things outlined there subject only to the need to retain the copyright notice and the license itself. I can grab MIT-licensed files and commit them to my repo (e.g., vendoring a dependency). I can also grab the files from an MIT-licensed commit and then the files from the next commit and recreate the history of that repo with myself as the author provided I've met those two conditions. I'm not saying this isn't _scummy_ behavior; it is! But its within the bounds of what the MIT license allows. | | |
| ▲ | jpc0 an hour ago | parent [-] | | MIT does not wave the right to attribution so no even under MIT it is illegal to reattribue work. Authorship and the underlying code are seperate rights under law. |
| |
| ▲ | someonebaggy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think there's any legal concept of "taking authorship". What even is that? | | |
| ▲ | austinthetaco 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | taking, as in claiming. its a significant part of copyright law. | | |
| ▲ | bux93 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | In the US, claiming authorship isn't as protected or significant as internationally; moral rights are only protected for "works of visual art". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights Which is not to say that uploading something to github is necessarily asserting ones authorship (if you read the front matter of a book, you might see a phrasing such as "[Name] asserts the moral right to be identified at the author of this work."; this is intended for jurisdictions that comply with the Berne convention more fully than the US does.) It is also not an instrument of conveyance (which needs to be signed by the owner of the rights) or the same as registering a copyright. A copyright notice is no longer required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (effective as of 1989), but would involve the copyright symbol and not a git upload. | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is jurisdiction specific. The US doesn't have anything like this as long as you're not claiming to own the copyright. As far as I know, this is also why in some European countries you can't simply make a work public domain, as you can't give up attribution rights. In the US, you just don't have any attribution rights (though you could demand attribution as part of a copyright license). And in any case, the copyright notice is still intact. They did attribute the author. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | strangecasts 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Software licenses aren't enforced by magic but they are social contracts: even if nobody has the resources to go after you for doing it, it is pretty clearly against the permissive licenses' spirit to misrepresent yourself as the author |
| |
| ▲ | someonebaggy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's also pretty clear that the real author gave you permission to misrepresent yourself as the author, as long as you retain the copyright notice. If he didn't want you to do that, he shouldn't have given you permission. | | |
| ▲ | strangecasts 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The "if they wanted you to follow the spirit, the letter should have been different" argument grants membership in the society of people known throughout history as "the reasons we can't have nice things" | |
| ▲ | austinthetaco an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | they dont though. nothing about MIT license is granting anyone the ability to misrepresent as the author. thats why its a license and not copyright transfer. | |
| ▲ | illumanaughty 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow you sound like a nice person |
|
|
