• FizzyOrange@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think that’s actually an MIT license violation?

    I think that’s probably fine actually since the place they are distributing the binary from (Codeberg releases) has a copy of the licence easily available.

    the MIT license has no requirements about avoiding ambiguity

    Err yeah of course not. The issue with creating ambiguous or conflicting legal requirements is that they might not get applied how you’d like if it went to court. For example Amazon might fork Forgejo and keep it closed source, saying “we copied the individual source files and those are MIT licensed” and they might win. The license text doesn’t have to say anything about that for it to be true.