Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
You could poison most of the web dev ecosystem by changing the license on a handful of packages to GPL...
The author's comments are quite enlightening of their incomplete understanding of the licenses they use:
> nanocolors implementation and API are the same as
> Colorette. You essentially pirated my work.
After using a license that explicitly allows others to take their work, it's suprising the author thinks that someone "pirated" their work.
Hopefully this signals the start of an awakening within the JS ecosystem, with more and more developers switching to licenses like the GPL that actually respect the developers.
If you use a gpl licensed library in your project, it essentially becomes gpl licensed too. If you ever want to sell your software, this is probably a big no-no. It will become quite challenging, and could end up in a legal desaster.
So to create a successful library, other people are willing to use, you essentially have to release it without restrictions.
He stripped the license when he created his fork. (Only adding it after the thread on Twitter became actively noticed).
How is that _not_ pirating?
IIRC, the MIT license does not require attribution (EDIT: it does)
Most people do not understand the philosophy of Open Source. It's not "hey look at me, I made this, look at me".
They should not give liberties to other people if they don't want them to use it.
EDIT: Seeing the comments to this one, this should be seen as a proof of Cunningham's Law[1]
[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_LawThey're also not saying that they weren't allowed to fork it. Just that it was an asshole move, and in community efforts that matters too. The exact same thing could happen with a GPL project, no difference license-wise.
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright © 2021 <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
He was violating the license until 19 hours ago: https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/commit/1d86f02ca751ad8c113c...
The MIT license is a bad license but in this case the terms of it were clearly being violated by a hostile actor.
I did not claim I was "sure", which is the point of "IIRC". Calling this misinformation is a bit exaggerated.
You can choose to be kind.
IIRC isn't necessary when the content is clearly and easily accessible for you to read, I would prefer to not have to read comments based on vague memory when the facts are right there. This is netiquette.
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
It clearly requires attribution.