|
|
|
|
|
by gopiandcode
1734 days ago
|
|
I think it's likely indicative of the fact that the JS ecosystem doesn't really understand the meaning of open source (or the distinction between "open source" and free/libre software). The author's comments are quite enlightening of their incomplete understanding of the licenses they use: > nanocolors implementation and API are the same as > Colorette. You essentially pirated my work. After using a license that explicitly allows others to take their work, it's suprising the author thinks that someone "pirated" their work. Hopefully this signals the start of an awakening within the JS ecosystem, with more and more developers switching to licenses like the GPL that actually respect the developers. |
|
He stripped the license when he created his fork. (Only adding it after the thread on Twitter became actively noticed).
How is that _not_ pirating?