So far from your behavior - a 1 day old account with its only issue to accuse the original developer - seems to stick. Maybe that's a clue to how you've handled this?
There is zero chance the author of that issue read their own post.
The vast majority of license violations are just MIT or ASL projects whose license text got stripped in the minified deliverable. Just adding source maps for those libraries is enough to become compliant.
I have no clue with regards to LGPL on the web but since it is delivered via WASM, there is a linking boundary so it might just be an issue regarding letting users bring their own implementation.
> The vast majority of license violations are just MIT or ASL projects whose license text got stripped in the minified deliverable.
"Just"? The requirement to retain verbatim copies of the license text and copyright notices is pretty much the whole point of those licenses. A downstream project that isn't following the terms of the license that it was offered under is violating the license, full stop.
(Side note: not a fan of the tribalism and reactionary tu quoque-y sentiments coming out in the comments here and in the linked comments on GitHub (which, to be fair, is predictably awful). If there are folks distributing unauthorized copies or derivative works of Photopea, those need to be taken down (or DMCAed). If Photopea itself is not in compliance with the licenses of its dependencies, it needs to be brought in compliance. Neither these things or nor some other acts undertaken by any of the persons involved cancels anything else out.)
The MPL ones are nonsense (given that the analysis is not done on the "source code form" of the library), but MIT license requires attribution. Photopea should include an "About" with attribution of the libraries used to develop it.
The Apache license also says "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License".
> I don't need threats or online bullying.
> There are people on both sides of the fence, and I want out.
Victim card. How classy. You are using every trick in the book, one by one
Then why are you bullying photopea by posting slop from alt accounts?
https://github.com/photopea/photopea/issues/9042
This is childish behavior.
How is that me? This shit blew up overnight. There are people on both sides of the fence, and I want out.
Maybe next time consult Claude first for potential fallout before embarking on a project.
So far from your behavior - a 1 day old account with its only issue to accuse the original developer - seems to stick. Maybe that's a clue to how you've handled this?
[flagged]
5 replies →
There is zero chance the author of that issue read their own post.
The vast majority of license violations are just MIT or ASL projects whose license text got stripped in the minified deliverable. Just adding source maps for those libraries is enough to become compliant.
I have no clue with regards to LGPL on the web but since it is delivered via WASM, there is a linking boundary so it might just be an issue regarding letting users bring their own implementation.
> The vast majority of license violations are just MIT or ASL projects whose license text got stripped in the minified deliverable.
"Just"? The requirement to retain verbatim copies of the license text and copyright notices is pretty much the whole point of those licenses. A downstream project that isn't following the terms of the license that it was offered under is violating the license, full stop.
(Side note: not a fan of the tribalism and reactionary tu quoque-y sentiments coming out in the comments here and in the linked comments on GitHub (which, to be fair, is predictably awful). If there are folks distributing unauthorized copies or derivative works of Photopea, those need to be taken down (or DMCAed). If Photopea itself is not in compliance with the licenses of its dependencies, it needs to be brought in compliance. Neither these things or nor some other acts undertaken by any of the persons involved cancels anything else out.)
5 replies →
The MPL ones are nonsense (given that the analysis is not done on the "source code form" of the library), but MIT license requires attribution. Photopea should include an "About" with attribution of the libraries used to develop it.
The Apache license also says "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License".