Voice.ai Stole Open-Source Code, Banned Developer Who Informed Them About This

Re:Voice.ai Stole Open-Source Code, Banned Developer Who Inf... by creatable on Sunday February 19, 2023 @07:04AM (#34856883)

Have you seen the Ms-PL? It appears to be deliberately GPL incompatible while also having a similar list of conditions as the MIT license. I think it should be the default license for public repositories.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Voice.ai Stole Open-Source Code, Banned Developer Who Inf... by iLoveOncall on Sunday February 19, 2023 @07:09AM (#34856912)

No.

    (C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.

    (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

This is already way too demanding. There should not be ANY terms, and similarly there shouldn't be ANY expectation from the user.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Voice.ai Stole Open-Source Code, Banned Developer Who Inf... by creatable on Sunday February 19, 2023 @07:11AM (#34856928)

Section D is what makes it specifically GPL incompatible. The problem with not having ANY terms is that people can make derivatives of your software under new conditions, due to how copyright law works. You need conditions to impose the lack of conditions.

[ Parent | on HN ]