official line seems to currently be "sorry uwu, no code was directly copied, therefore we didn't actually do an accidental copyright". reminder: the only thing they'd have to do to fix the problem they're trying to deny is to copy and paste around some license boilerplate. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

megazeux.bsky.social • 37 days ago

official line seems to currently be "sorry uwu, no code was directly copied, therefore we didn't actually do an accidental copyright". reminder: the only thing they'd have to do to fix the problem they're trying to deny is to copy and paste around some license boilerplate.

Comments

megazeux.bsky.social•27 days ago

b-b-but I was told the code wasn't Taken Directly™ 😰
https://www.rtems.org/news/2025-05-06-rtems-devkit-libogc-response/

megazeux.bsky.social•27 days ago

at what point does "passively violating OSS copyright" turn into "actively violating OSS copyright", I wonder
https://github.com/devkitPro/libogc/pull/207#issuecomment-2848203495

megazeux.bsky.social•27 days ago

megazeux.bsky.social•13 days ago

i guess "not directly taken" isn't a watertight legal theory after all
https://github.com/devkitPro/libogc/pull/210

megazeux.bsky.social•13 days ago

vgmoose.dev•26 days ago

For most Wii devs, this should be enough to comply with the RTEMS licensing right? Like, whether the libogc maintainers end up acknowledging it or not, the full license disclosure is still on the end developer.

megazeux.bsky.social•26 days ago

I *think* a statement like this should be enough for Wii devs to cover the FOSS code that libogc copied, yes.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply