People here keep saying that they removed copyright headers. I can't find a single copyright header in the Spegel source files. Can someone help me find which headers Microsoft actually removed?
What I see is that Microsoft added headers to their Peerd files. Now they read "Copyright Microsoft", which is correct because Microsoft owns some copyright over those modified files. If those files had had a "Copyright Spegel project" before, Microsoft should have kept it and added their own. But those files did not contain such a header as far as I can see.
Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of this LICENSE file somewhere? Can't we just open a PR to add it to the repo? Did the author do that and did Microsoft decline the PR?
Feels like Microsoft was not necessarily trying to steal work (they link the original project in their README).
It needs to be present in the headers of each file that they took from. Attribution matters and in mixed projects you need that clarification at the file level.
Does the MIT licence text say that? I don't understand it like this. I understand that a copy of the licence should be preserved, not that the licence should be copied into source files.
I think the fork needs to preserve the LICENSE file in the repo and in distributed code (e.g. packages), right? But not replicated as a file header in every blessed file in the repo.
What I see is that Microsoft added headers to their Peerd files. Now they read "Copyright Microsoft", which is correct because Microsoft owns some copyright over those modified files. If those files had had a "Copyright Spegel project" before, Microsoft should have kept it and added their own. But those files did not contain such a header as far as I can see.