[learnstats2]

The Hatetris code doesn’t appear to have an open source license, or any license, so it isn’t open source.

This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder.

(On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)

[Jon_Lowtek]

https://github.com/qntm/hatetris/issues/50

License: MIT

[learnstats2]

I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(

[haneefmubarak]

I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation.

The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.

[learnstats2]

I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.

The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.

This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.

[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]

[Pfhreak]

I mean, Hatetris probably wasn't using the Tetris trademarks properly, right? Aren't both just remix culture?

[simondotau]

Morally? I suppose if you squint hard enough.

Legally though, just because one person's proprietary work relies upon another person's proprietary work, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes open source or public domain.

[Pfhreak]

I'm just surprised the community made the critique on this version but not the other one.

[simondotau]

Honestly I’m not surprised. The prior work could be argued as being fair use of the Tetris copyright. It certainly isn’t stealing any market from any official licensed Tetris products or services. Morally, I can find it very easily defensible.

This “Lovetris” work is a blatant copying and republishing of someone else’s proprietary work effort with no permission. Morally, I don’t see this as an egregious abuse, but I can see why this community would object to someone not acting in the spirit of open source licensing.