Thread

1. dtf · 1790846196 · focus · HN ↗

   Seems quite similar to this repository?

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;aloshdenny&#x2F;open-dlss" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;aloshdenny&#x2F;open-dlss

   1. godbox · 1790846986 · focus · HN ↗

      Same exact commits at the same time as well, but different repository names and authors. What the hell?

      1. _ache_ · 1790847333 · focus · HN ↗

         From the LICENSE

         Copyright (c) 2026 maan

         So... Either alooshdenny stole the commits, or it&#x27;s an alias for maan.

         1. esperent · 1790848514 · focus · HN ↗

            It&#x27;s not stolen. It&#x27;s MIT licensed and the attribution is still there.

            1. mariusor · 1790852955 · focus · HN ↗

               Rewriting the commit author is very much &quot;stolen&quot;.

               1. someonebaggy · 1790854677 · focus · HN ↗

                  [dead]

                  1. strangecasts · 1790855845 · focus · HN ↗

                     Software licenses aren&#x27;t enforced by magic but they are social contracts: even if nobody has the resources to go after you for doing it, it is pretty clearly against the permissive licenses&#x27; spirit to misrepresent yourself as the author

                     1. someonebaggy · 1790856254 · focus · HN ↗

                        It&#x27;s also pretty clear that the real author gave you permission to misrepresent yourself as the author, as long as you retain the copyright notice. If he didn&#x27;t want you to do that, he shouldn&#x27;t have given you permission.

                        1. illumanaughty · 1790857458 · focus · HN ↗

                           Wow you sound like a nice person
                        2. strangecasts · 1790857496 · focus · HN ↗

                           The &quot;if they wanted you to follow the spirit, the letter should have been different&quot; argument grants membership in the society of people known throughout history as &quot;the reasons we can&#x27;t have nice things&quot;

                           1. someonebaggy · 1790883564 · focus · HN ↗

                              And everyone who follows this argument has become filthy rich.

                              1. strangecasts · 1790894204 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Incorrect, there are plenty of people who ignore or fail to recognize the purpose of a rule as a completely free service, as any forums mod or OSS project maintainer can attest to
                           2. lukan · 1790887501 · focus · HN ↗

                              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1499&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1499&#x2F;
                        3. austinthetaco · 1790859047 · focus · HN ↗

                           they dont though. nothing about MIT license is granting anyone the ability to misrepresent as the author. thats why its a license and not copyright transfer.

                           1. someonebaggy · 1790941168 · focus · HN ↗

                              You have to keep the copyright notice and the license. Everything else can be changed as you see fit.

                              1. austinthetaco · 1790956228 · focus · HN ↗

                                 thats just not true. Commits themselves are held up as copyrighted and a claim for creation. just as you cant legally put up a poster claiming you painted a painting you just got a license for, you can&#x27;t claim the commits.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.