How is this not theft?
It even contains the original 'Copyright 2021-2022. All Rights Reserved.' and the privacy policy contains the original 'wordle@powerlanguage.co.uk'.
function ca(e, a, s, t, o) { e !== a && he(a, (function(n, r) { if (o || (o = new de), G(n)) ua(e, a, r, s, ca, t, o); else { var i = t ? t(Ze(e, r), n, r + "", e, a, o) : void 0; void 0 === i && (i = n), pe(e, r, i) } } ), la) }
If the author wants to create an open source version of wordle they could start a clean room implementation as well as introduce a new ui and name. If they want it to be compatible with the old saves I assume they could reverse engineer them rather than looking at the code.
As for the licensing, I chose a license that would require anyone using [redacted] to give credit and disclose source, ensuring that all further forks and derivative forks would point back to the original Wordle site and would have to use the same license to continue the requirement of giving credit where credit is due.
I've already notified the original creator of Wordle, and of course if he or NYT demands that the content be taken down on the grounds of copyright violation, that's a completely different story.
It should be noted that I'm not making any money off of Wordle or the Wordle brand (unlike many others).
You could create a repository of the code as-is and call it preservation if you’d like, that’s ok. The author can still ask you to take it sown though. But you cannot relicense it and tell people they can do whatever they want with the code. It’s not yours.
The original author could have open sourced this but didn’t. You can’t just do it for them.
The full Javascript codebase is downloaded to the client upon loading the original Wordle website, only code directly available to the client was ported over to GitHub.
> It even contains the original 'Copyright 2021-2022. All Rights Reserved.'
The copyright part has been updated to instead give full credit back to the creator of the original Wordle site (copyright is a very loose term when it applies to websites - derivative works are typically fine as long as source is disclosed, credit is given, and there aren't any advertisements/paid upgrades).
> the privacy policy contains the original 'wordle@powerlanguage.co.uk'.
That was a bug in the way I ported over the code, I accidentally included a Cloudflare proxy email that I must have missed, it's been updated now and thank you for pointing that out.
> made open source under a different licence? Also using the same name? How is this not theft?
This isn't a Wordle "clone" and doesn't blatantly rip off the original Wordle site (unlike many others), rather this is a direct fork of the original project. I have multiple mentions crediting the original creator and linking back to him (within the README on GitHub as well as on the website itself). The purpose of [redacted] is to ensure that there is always a version of the original Wordle site that will remain available for free. As for the licensing, I chose a license that would require anyone using [redacted] to give credit and disclose source, ensuring that all further forks and derivative forks would point back to the original Wordle site and would have to use the same license to continue the requirement of giving credit where credit is due.
That's not how it works, at all.