You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
18 points

Apache explicitly allows this. I don’t get why OSI bros are endlessly surprised by this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

They apparently copied without attribution in a manner that was a violation? I’m still looking for precise wording of the PEL.

It’s very hard to violate the Apache license, but these are the sort of bozos who could manage it.

EDIT: Here is the PEL. It lacks the attribution requirements of section 4 of the Apache Licence 2.0. So yeah, they managed it.

This is a small technical violation that’s easily remedied, but I understand that’s what got people pissed off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I’m a little bit in the camp of ‘it might be legal, but that doesn’t mean it is ok’. So I get why people are annoyed. Also copying a whole project and then slamming a different license on it and going ‘jobs done’ very much fits the promptfondler vibe, so im not mad, more of a ‘lol, of course they did’ thing. But that is me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It’s a little illegal and a lot christ what assholes

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yeah, pretty bad coverage of that by the article.

Apache isn’t GPL, and it isn’t an oversight that it allows closed source derivative works.

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 565

    Posts

  • 16K

    Comments

Community moderators