News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:OpenDLSS: A Vulkan Reimplementation of Nvidia's DLSS 5 Ne... by blochist on Thursday October 01, 2026 @08:56AM (#49921006)
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.
Re:OpenDLSS: A Vulkan Reimplementation of Nvidia's DLSS 5 Ne... by jpc0 on Thursday October 01, 2026 @09:20AM (#49921326)
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.

Re:OpenDLSS: A Vulkan Reimplementation of Nvidia's DLSS 5 Ne... by esperent on Thursday October 01, 2026 @12:33PM (#49923881)
> MIT does not wave the right to attribution

Waive. And no, it doesn't but it doesn't require attribution either. So you're falling back on copyright law which is unlikely to protect you here - there's a reason people include licenses, after all.

Re:OpenDLSS: A Vulkan Reimplementation of Nvidia's DLSS 5 Ne... by jpc0 on Saturday October 03, 2026 @06:54PM (#49948563)
People include licenses because if there isn't any license copyright law applies and you may not create any copy of said code. You as a third party have no use of the code without a license