Hacker News Reader

Comment by cowsandmilk | Hacker News Reader

Really, lodash was a fork of underscore, not a reimplementation. The git history shows it.

https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commits/0.1.0?after=e0971cd...

Perfect, even better! Now we can all correct ourselves and call it a fork, which sounds much nicer than "rip", "ripoff" or "clone".

Most forks mention their origins somewhere in their bio. I'd still call it a rip considering no credit is being given at all. Why should I need to dig into the Git history to find out the creative origin of Lodash?

> Most forks mention their origins somewhere in their bio

Ok, does that make forks who don't mention where they forked from rips? Huge leap in logic.

> Why should I need to dig into the Git history to find out the creative origin of Lodash?

Well, if you're interested in the origin you either look for information available in threads like this, where other people dig or you dig yourself. Not sure what the problem is. Someone published a library under MIT, another person forked that library and created a new one, also under MIT, and somehow the fork is now a rip? Give me a break

The license file reads: Based on Underscore.js, copyright Jeremy Ashkenas, DocumentCloud and Investigative Reporters & Editors <http://underscorejs.org/>

If they were giving "no credit at all", they would be in violation of the MIT license.

More accurate is 'stolen code without proper attribution'

Hope you don't publish any MIT code and then blame people when they fork it. That'd be really against the spirit of the MIT license.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lodash/lodash/4.17.10-npm/...

> Based on Underscore.js, copyright Jeremy Ashkenas, DocumentCloud and Investigative Reporters & Editors <http://underscorejs.org/>

They've given precisely as much attribution as is required.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com