Hello everyone.
I just forked this and added my own 2 themes to my fork. Both themes are based on the winternord theme contained within that repository. In the theme the author, 2xx04 clearly states at the top that their code contains modifications to Bootstrap’s CSS, as well as the Nord colour scheme by Arctic Ice Studio & Sven Greb. Both of those repositories contain the MIT license, but 2xx04’s repository contains no license.
My question is this: Even though technically any github repository with no license has the default copyright rules applied to it (i.e. the author has sole ownership), since they failed to include the license of the software they modified, my repository should include the MIT license, and any code written by me is mine (under MIT license rules of course, so anyone can copy and distribute it)?
Thanks in advance. Here is a link to my repository in case you need it to understand what I mean
While I’m not a lawyer, the MIT license is very short. It very clearly states that the MIT license shall be included in any projects that include copies or substantial portions of the MIT-licensed source code. As a result, any projects that are modifications/forks of an MIT-licensed project are, inherently, forced to have the MIT license included with them.
Or in short: You can’t take an MIT licensed project, modify it, and remove the MIT license because of your modifications.
As such, 2xx04 is technically in violation of the MIT license. The main thing I don’t know is whether that gives you the right to treat 2xx04’s repository as though it is MIT license. However, you forked the original project, which means 2xx04 is directly referenced by your repository. To be honest, unless I intended to make money off such a project … I wouldn’t sweat it too hard.
I don’t know if they removed the license strictly speaking, they replaced it with a link to the upstream license, which seems fine to me on a surface level.
https://github.com/2xx04/lemmy-ui-themes/blob/main/winternord.css#L2-L6
This is correct. And given the parent license is MIT I’d just include an MIT LICENSE file in my fork and be done with it.
Ah, that honestly works fine in my book. It’s a bit opaque, but it at least appears that 2xx04 acknowledges the existence of those licenses, which I’d imagine is good enough proof not to get in trouble somehow by forking it!
I’ll include it anyway just to be safe then. Better have have the license of the projects he derived his from, rather than not. Thanks!
Indeed, also worth checking out the response of @heartlessevil@lemmy.one
The main thing I don’t know is whether that gives you the right to treat 2xx04’s repository as though it is MIT license
Of course it doesn’t (it doesn’t for GPL violations, either)
Have you considered opening an issue on the repo asking this? They might add a license or grant you one.
They haven’t been active in over a year, I checked and considered doing that. I think what @Hexarei@beehaw.org said makes the most sense, that I shouldn’t sweat it. I’ll add the MIT license anyway as technically my project which is an ancestor of sorts to the other ones with the license should have it.
