[potatosareok]

What the hell is this these are companies that make millions of dollars a year arguing on the weekend with public blog posts. This is what lawyers are for. I automatically assume if you try to argue online you're in the wrong and are counting on public opinion to save you.

[eadz]

Not even lawyers, just raise it as an issue and try to work something out before yelling "Stealing Code" all over the internet.

There are so many packages, libraries & dependencies out there that missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose.

[pluma]

> missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose

This doesn't sound like the typical "junior dev who doesn't understand licenses added a GPL dependency" situation. Especially considering Wix's reply.

If you're arguing that nobody at Wix understands the implication of software licensing you're arguing all of their senior developers are unfit to hold senior positions.

A basic understanding of software licenses (i.e. at least Unlicense/CC0 vs MIT/BSD/Apache2 vs LGPL vs GPL/AGPL) is one of the first things I expect every junior developer to learn when working on a company product that involves third-party code.

This is either a rookie mistake (in which case Wix should have owned up to it and fixed it), malice or ignorance. And I'm not sure ignorance would save them any more respect than malice.

[fourthark]

Or, posting online before contacting each other directly? Incomprehensible to me.