Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

Re:Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyri... by xigoi on Saturday December 25, 2021 @02:00PM (#29685936)

The “Yzena Copyleft License” states that it's a copyleft license, but it also states that it's not a viral license. According to Wikipedia, a viral license and a copyleft license are the same thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyri... by ghoward on Saturday December 25, 2021 @02:44PM (#29686314)

Wikipedia is not the best source of information.

There is a difference between "strong" copyleft and "weak" copyleft. An example of "weak" (non-viral) copyleft is the CDDL. In fact, the CDDL's Wikipedia page talks about strong and weak copyleft.

You can read [1] for a breakdown of copyleft by an actual lawyer. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia's Copyleft page is woefully inadequate.

[1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/10/24/How-to-Speak-Copyl...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyri... by xigoi on Wednesday December 29, 2021 @01:48PM (#29728295)

If the Wikipedia article is misleading, it probably shouldn't be linked in the license…

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyri... by ghoward on Thursday December 30, 2021 @12:24AM (#29733921)

I link to Wikipedia as a first point of call. People should always look deeper, and I can't help that.

[ Parent | on HN ]