1. 4
  1.  

  2. 6

    The code, when you click through, is 30 lines of javascript and some color definitions.

    1. 3

      HOW DARE YOU STEAL MY LIFE’S WORK

    2. 6

      The mentioned developer responds here and his reasoning and actions behind forking the library make sense to me.

      https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783#issuecomment-927107377

      1. 15

        Except he didn’t fork the project: he copied the code, removed attribution and removed the history. The history and attribution were added after he was outed on Twitter. If he had forked it all of the above would have been preserved.

        1. 2

          FWIW, under most licences you don’t need to preserve history to fork. Most do require attribution though, it’s true.

          1. 3

            Not the MIT license that has been used here, but some licenses require a note about changes made, to varying degrees of verbosity. While that can be managed differently, keeping version control history is the the easiest way these days to keep everything in compliance. GNU projects have ChangeLog files for that purpose but then, GNU predates most version control tooling by a few years or decades.

            1. 1

              Interesting, thanks

              1. 1

                Not the MIT license that has been used here

                Please see my other comment as to why yours is incorrect.

                1. 2

                  My phrasing sucked, sorry (and now it’s too late to edit).

                  I was referring to “need to preserve history to fork” - MIT doesn’t require change notifications unlike GPL, EUPL and others, MIT “only” requires attribution. Seems simple enough but apparently still too hard for folks sigh

                  1. 1

                    Ah, gotcha. Now I understand what you were saying “no” to.

          2. 4
            1. 1

              Oops, fixed. Thanks!

            2. 2

              They explained things further in a Twitter thread, providing a timeline of sorts.

              In particular, the following tweet digs into the lineage of this particular library, suggesting that the author of the ‘original’ codebase had also copied liberally from another.

              Furthermore, it seems the accuser has resorted to DMCA takedowns in the past? I cannot verify this. Definitely would suggest some hypocrisy in the “spirit of open source” department.

            3. 3

              Unclear: did he follow the license terms or not?

              1. 8

                It seems not initially – the original was MIT licensed, which requires attribution, but no attribution was included. The fork seems to have fixed this after the original author complained about it on Twitter.

                1. 1

                  For MIT license no attribution required.

                  1. 3

                    The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

                    1. 3

                      It’s a pretty short license, a quick look shows the mechanism of requiring attribution. Here, this is the entire license, with emphasis added:

                      Copyright […]

                      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 merchantibility, 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.