this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
59 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1377 readers
327 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Apache explicitly allows this. I don't get why OSI bros are endlessly surprised by this.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They apparently copied without attribution in a manner that was a violation? I'm still looking for precise wording of the PEL.

It's very hard to violate the Apache license, but these are the sort of bozos who could manage it.

EDIT: Here is the PEL. It lacks the attribution requirements of section 4 of the Apache Licence 2.0. So yeah, they managed it.

This is a small technical violation that's easily remedied, but I understand that's what got people pissed off.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm a little bit in the camp of 'it might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is ok'. So I get why people are annoyed. Also copying a whole project and then slamming a different license on it and going 'jobs done' very much fits the promptfondler vibe, so im not mad, more of a 'lol, of course they did' thing. But that is me.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

It's a little illegal and a lot christ what assholes

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Yeah, pretty bad coverage of that by the article.

Apache isn't GPL, and it isn't an oversight that it allows closed source derivative works.