A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

Re:A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of ... by Otek on Sunday September 26, 2021 @08:23AM (#28660324)

I wish the legal arguments (the fact that the original project was under the MIT license - that's right, the original author has no rights to draw consequences from this rip-off) didn't blind everyone to the fact that "ai" behaved not ok. Not in the spirit of OpenSource. If he encountered problems with the library, why didn't he want to contact the author first and suggest changes to the original project? Why didn't he write that the project is a fork? Why is he now pushing his library into projects that use colorette? Seems like an unclean pursuit of some imaginary power, instead of a desire to develop free software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of ... by dralley on Sunday September 26, 2021 @10:07AM (#28661007)

The MIT license still requires attribution, so no this isn't ok.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of ... by lordlic on Sunday September 26, 2021 @10:58AM (#28661364)

That doesn't conflict with anything they said.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of ... by tessierashpool on Sunday September 26, 2021 @11:21AM (#28661552)

it doesn't conflict with the overall sense of what they said.

but it does conflict with this particular remark:

"the original author has no rights to draw consequences from this rip-off"

since the license requires attribution, this is false.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of ... by iskin on Sunday September 26, 2021 @02:10PM (#28663121)

I mentioned him in docs, COPYRIGHT and keep the origin history?

I clearly explain the reasons of fork creation and the changes https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes

What “fork rules” did I violate?

[ Parent | on HN ]