Comment by cxr
13 days ago
> 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.)
there's the rub, ai cloned is not derivative in the copyright sense. we need to figure out what we value as a society here and let the law catch up. its wild right now
That's not the rub. We don't have to figure those things out here. The Photopea Offline repo that started this whole mess contains literal copies of the Photopea bundles/assets copied from the Photopea website.
that may be true, but doesnt change the outcome. that it's literal copyright infringement here is quaint: the same user can turn around and give us a new photopea clone with 0% matching code in about 10 minutes. then what?
2 replies →