Depending on the license (caveat: I've not checked) the issue isn't the source being used it is the apparent attempt to claim copyright of the code the fourth is derived from (slapping their copyright messages in, with little/no indication that their contribution is only a small part of the work).
Even if the original license doesn't block this, it is still a bit of a dick move IMO.
It's not about the name thing. It's about the usage of parts of the licensed material without following the license. For example, commit messages, the subtitle, etc.
Theoretically:
* tip4commit violates the license the code is published under (for example if it has a NonCommercial clause).
* The original author is now the only one who has copyright.
* tip4commit is using safe harbor protections (a user chooses to create a page for a project).
* DMCA is now applicable to protect the copyright of the original author.
Attribution is important enough that several software licenses amount to little more than "attribute the original authors and don't sue us." Attribution is important enough that a right of attribution is incorporated into some countries copyright law as "authors rights".
Perhaps legally, in this case, they're owed nothing - but it's not unreasonable to consider stripping said attributions to be a dick move, even when legal. Maybe unsuprising, but a dick move nonetheless.
Without going into to the code itself I'm always wary of these hobby projects that then get used at work when they are by the same author.
Who now really owns the IP?
The author didn’t write all of the code, though. The code has a long history (including in other languages) and many contributors.
Why should this one developer collect payment but not everyone else who contributed it?
Regardless, it’s ridiculous to give something away openly under a permissive license and then later get angry when people use it exactly as you license it.
"If copyright does apply and the code is still in the code base, we can remove the contribution. Depending on whether current contributors and users still value the effect of that contribution, it may need to be reimplemented."
They DO have copyright on the reverse engineering work. But that doesn't mean that they don't have full copyright over the code which looking at the LICENSE file alone it looks they are claiming. There should at least be a copyright line mentioning the original authors, even if just "Unknown Authors". They also obviously don't have permission to redistribute their derivative or to create it in the first place.
Its also ironic that they expect others to follow their license when they are fine with ignoring the copyright of the original hackers.
Ultimately though, copyright as we have it today is extremely silly and all they are asking for is attribution which IMO should be the default.
Other contributors were using a very permissive license, that allows sublicensing. They were okay with a proprietary software company embedding their code into a proprietary product and selling it, they should be okay with this as well.
I don't see that the author has clearly copied anything there. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. This situation only proves open-source licensing is in a bad shape.
Actually it is horrible. See, for example, the criticisms and questions being raised on the whole thread about this library.
(Until anyone point a better alternative, I'm for "if you don't want anyone using them, don't publish your sources".)
I think that people don't seem to understand that most open source licences don't require attribution. If you have released your code according to a licence, what right do you have to complain that people are using that code in accordance with that licence?
In this case though, it looks like Obvious did set out to attribute the original GAN author and Christie's have omitted that.
Like with many things related to license and copyright, this is an issue of culture.
Maybe programmers should realize it's in our common interest to have some kind of group voice. Other random groups with lower stakes seem to get concessions.
How about instead of role-playing as lawyers, we realize that maybe they should've thrown this guy a bone in the form of an attribution purely for the purposes of etiquette.
> it would require either seeking permission from all those contributors or removing all of the code that they wrote.
I might be mistaken, but I believe this would only apply to copyleft licenses? Permissive licenses allow redistributing under a different license, as long as the attribution and original copyright disclaimer are retained.
Even if the original license doesn't block this, it is still a bit of a dick move IMO.
reply