Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by eolix1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

eolix1

[flagged]

View on HN

> 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?

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.)

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?

When it comes to questions of copyright and the infringement of copyright, the small matter of whether or not infringement occurred is in fact not merely an inconsequential detail.

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".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com