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. austinthetaco · 1790855547 · focus · HN ↗

                     this is completely and totally incorrect. MIT lets you redistribute, copy, and modify. It does not let you take authorship over the original work, even if just by way of changing git history.

                     1. someonebaggy · 1790856236 · focus · HN ↗

                        I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s any legal concept of &quot;taking authorship&quot;. What even is that?

                        1. austinthetaco · 1790856468 · focus · HN ↗

                           taking, as in claiming. its a significant part of copyright law.

                           1. bux93 · 1790860741 · focus · HN ↗

                              In the US, claiming authorship isn&#x27;t as protected or significant as internationally; moral rights are only protected for &quot;works of visual art&quot;. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Moral_rights" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Moral_rights

                              Which is not to say that uploading something to github is necessarily asserting ones authorship (if you read the front matter of a book, you might see a phrasing such as &quot;[Name] asserts the moral right to be identified at the author of this work.&quot;; this is intended for jurisdictions that comply with the Berne convention more fully than the US does.) It is also not an instrument of conveyance (which needs to be signed by the owner of the rights) or the same as registering a copyright. A copyright notice is no longer required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (effective as of 1989), but would involve the copyright symbol and not a git upload.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.