Re: Notice of MIT License violation by Roberto Foglietta

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 20:34, Aaro Koskinen via busybox
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 03:53:15PM +0200, Ellie via busybox wrote:
> > On 4/27/26 7:54 AM, Kang-Che Sung via busybox wrote:
> > > I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's good to inform you that the MIT
> > > license does not require attribution in generated binaries.
> > "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> > all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
> >
> > That's the quote in question, isn't it? Where does that say that it no
> > longer applies to generated binaries?
> >
> > (When I include MIT dependencies myself I tend to interpret it as notice
> > both in the source and at runtime, since I personally can't make much sense
> > of it. So I tend to go with what I hope will avoid me trouble, as a
> > completely uninformed person. Needless to say, please don't interpret
> > anything I say as legal advice.)
>
> I guess if you delete the interactive banner message you need to provide
> the same information by other means (documentation, etc.). In this case
> the year range "2015-2019" does not exist anymore in that source file,
> so it will be difficult for provide that original intact copyright string.

Nice catch!

/* jdupes (C) 2015-2018 Jody Bruchon <[email protected]>
   Derived from fdupes (C) 1999-2018 Adrian Lopez

+:git-shell:jodybox:busybox> sw 97e3b97e6 | grep \(C\)
-      printf("\nCopyright (C) 2015-2019 by Jody Bruchon
<[email protected]>\n");

However, I have no clue if 2019 refers to the code or the additional
printf, in the second case 2019 should go away with the printf
otherwise 2019 should go on the top of the header. In this second case
is Jody that missed to update the header or more likely as per my
interpretation printf was part of the changed code/text in 2019. Most
of the printf in that code NEED to be shortened down, anyway.

However, having invited Jody to apply my changes and expand it, I
never supported the idea that my patches were finished work but a
feedback to jody.



>
> What's also bad they modified the code but didn't update the printed
> version strings, so now there's two "jdupes" that report the same version
> to user but have different code.

In fact, the printf has been deleted. Now there are two copies and one
did not bother the user with a copyright message like all the other
busybox applets do.

Please, be practical. Propose a patch if you can. Otherwise move to
whatsapp groups to debate about stuff that has nothing to do with
busybox.

I have been explicitly asked to bring back this m-list to a working
state, make this easier, please.