Hacker News Reader

What are the broader implications of this with respect to the rather permissive nature of the MIT license? I mean, it grants users the ability to outright copy the code, provided that they include a copy of the license. If oh-my-fish included the copyright notice, then regardless of any disagreement between the repo owners, it seems that the author of wahoo has no ground to stand on here. Can someone explain otherwise?

View on HN

You are correct. If oh-my-fish properly included the copyright and permission notice of the MIT license, then they are within the bounds of the license. It doesn't matter what the author's requests are, they can use it if they attribute properly. Of course, the author can henceforth change the license for any future code, preventing any unauthorized forks, which would be against then open-source spirit of the MIT license.

Thanks for validating my logic. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some major gotcha in the MIT license that I missed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com