[SpaceNugget]

Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread.

You:

> I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...

Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to:

> The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...

[palata]

You have the timing wrong, I did not do that in the order you suggest :-).

I thought people were saying that Microsoft removed the copyright headers and replaced them with them, which they did not.

Microsoft replaced the LICENSE for the whole repository with their own, and thanked Spegel in their README. While this is some kind of attribution, it's not enough for the MIT LICENSE. I don't know exactly what would be good enough, I think having a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file somewhere in their repo would be enough (though possibly less visible than the line in the README, to be fair).

My overall point is that it feels like people are complaining a lot about what seems to be an honest mistake. And not just that: the way Peerd did it is arguably giving more visibility to Spegel than if they had just copied the licence somewhere in their repo. Peerd could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README.

[SpaceNugget]

The file titled LICENSE contains a copyright notice. That's what a license file _is_ in the context of software a LICENSE to use someone's COPYRIGHTed software. You must abide by the terms under which you are granted the license, otherwise you don't have access via the license, and are thus violating the copyright. They aren't two unrelated concepts.

Anything else is noise, they violated the license. They blatantly copied copyrighted works. They can't "oopsie" that away or claim it as a mistake, honest or not. You simply are not allowed to do that.

Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. They don't get to choose whether or not to respect the license. And they don't need to remove the link, That's got nothing to do with the copyright issues. No one at Microsoft thought that call out was somehow the legally required attribution clearly explained in the MIT license.

[palata]

> Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license.

You do realise that those two statements are not incompatible? If they include the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README, they are still including the copyright notice and the rest of the licence.

The MIT licence does NOT say that you MUST have it at the root of your repository in a file called LICENSE. It does not say that you must clearly identify the parts of the code for which you don't own the copyright or anything like this.

You can read it here: https://opensource.org/license/mit

[SpaceNugget]

The part I was indicating was incorrect was your usage of "could" It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.

Like saying I choose to not be the richest person in the world. Sure it could be technically true, but the statement is incorrectly implying that it's up to me, or within my power to make the alternative choice.

It's very strange that you keep using these intentionally awkwardly phrased, misleading-adjacent statements.

The rest of your comment is attempting to refute something no one made a case for in the first place, which coupled with the rest of it makes it seem like you are just trying to argument-bait, so I'll tap out here.

[palata]

> It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.

Well, maybe I just can't English :-).

They must include the copyright notice and the permission notice. Now I can imagine different ways to achieve that. They could use one or the other, as long as what needs to be included is included.

Depending on how they do it (while staying in the realm of what they MUST do, i.e. include the copyright and permission notices), it gives more or less visibility do Spegel. My point was that linking to Spegel in the README arguably gives more visibility to Spegel than alternatives that they COULD choose. And to make it very very clear: what I consider alternatives that they COULD choose are those that honour the licence.