Hacker News Reader

License: MIT

I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(

I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation.

The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.

I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.

The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.

This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.

[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com