The maanHimself repository appears to be 35 hours older than the aloshdenny one based on `created_at` from the GitHub API. maanHimself's `pushed_at` predates aloshdenny's `created_at` too.
That doesn't guarantee maanHimself is the original author, but it's looking likely.
MIT License requires 'attribution', e.g. at the very least the original copyright notice and license text (which tbf is the case in aloshdenny's copy because he left the LICENSE.md intact (or just forgot to "clean up").
this is completely and totally incorrect. MIT lets you redistribute, copy, and modify. It does not let you take authorship over the original work, even if just by way of changing git history.
In the US, claiming authorship isn't as protected or significant as internationally; moral rights are only protected for "works of visual art". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
Which is not to say that uploading something to github is necessarily asserting ones authorship (if you read the front matter of a book, you might see a phrasing such as "[Name] asserts the moral right to be identified at the author of this work."; this is intended for jurisdictions that comply with the Berne convention more fully than the US does.) It is also not an instrument of conveyance (which needs to be signed by the owner of the rights) or the same as registering a copyright. A copyright notice is no longer required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (effective as of 1989), but would involve the copyright symbol and not a git upload.
This is jurisdiction specific. The US doesn't have anything like this as long as you're not claiming to own the copyright. As far as I know, this is also why in some European countries you can't simply make a work public domain, as you can't give up attribution rights. In the US, you just don't have any attribution rights (though you could demand attribution as part of a copyright license).
And in any case, the copyright notice is still intact. They did attribute the author.
This is untrue and if you thought about what you're claiming for a second this should be obvious. The MIT license let's someone do any of the things outlined there subject only to the need to retain the copyright notice and the license itself. I can grab MIT-licensed files and commit them to my repo (e.g., vendoring a dependency). I can also grab the files from an MIT-licensed commit and then the files from the next commit and recreate the history of that repo with myself as the author provided I've met those two conditions. I'm not saying this isn't _scummy_ behavior; it is! But its within the bounds of what the MIT license allows.
Waive. And no, it doesn't but it doesn't require attribution either. So you're falling back on copyright law which is unlikely to protect you here - there's a reason people include licenses, after all.
People include licenses because if there isn't any license copyright law applies and you may not create any copy of said code. You as a third party have no use of the code without a license
Software licenses aren't enforced by magic but they are social contracts: even if nobody has the resources to go after you for doing it, it is pretty clearly against the permissive licenses' spirit to misrepresent yourself as the author
It's also pretty clear that the real author gave you permission to misrepresent yourself as the author, as long as you retain the copyright notice. If he didn't want you to do that, he shouldn't have given you permission.
The "if they wanted you to follow the spirit, the letter should have been different" argument grants membership in the society of people known throughout history as "the reasons we can't have nice things"
Incorrect, there are plenty of people who ignore or fail to recognize the purpose of a rule as a completely free service, as any forums mod or OSS project maintainer can attest to
they dont though. nothing about MIT license is granting anyone the ability to misrepresent as the author. thats why its a license and not copyright transfer.
thats just not true. Commits themselves are held up as copyrighted and a claim for creation. just as you cant legally put up a poster claiming you painted a painting you just got a license for, you can't claim the commits.
It's an 8-bit PNG of a magenta patch (with a dash of white), but the ICC profile is set to Rec.2020 PQ. So I think the high 255 values of 8-bit magenta/white will get mapped to very top of the PQ curve, which is like 10,000 nits (or whatever brightness your display can muster)
Testing isn't an effective way to catch most race conditions. Code reviews, static analysis, and rigorous enforcement of concurrent coding standards is usually a better approach.
Or maybe even just reviewing logic that is subject to pre-emption.
Maybe I'm being too harsh.. on the plus side the system has at least failed hard every time there's been a fault. Nobody has died. But it's been 3 times now in the past couple of years, and two of those times resulted in over 2000 flights cancelled and days of backlog, and misery for hundreds of thousands. It's really not acceptable.
“Don’t over plan your life. Be open to the wonders and opportunities that present themselves,” Tan said.
[sharing reflections on his journey from MIT graduate to Apple executive to OpenAI Chief Hardware Officer as part of the Distinguished Speaker series hosted by the School of Engineering]
The American dream is alive and kicking.
reply