Discussion on whether this fork is illegal or not / How the MIT license works

[ghost]

The open source doesn't mean copyright-free. According to LICENSE file, this project is copyrighted under MIT. The copyright owner is Marak Squires.

If you intend to continue ignoring this warning, we must take action on them.
We will send a DMCA takedown notice to github, Then take a another legal action
#213

[ghost]

For everyone: Do not use this library. It's completely illegal. You should pay some money for it.

[damienwebdev]

@wowowooooo please clarify your complaint viewed against the original License terms:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

To be clear on exactly what are we doing in this project:

1. We made a copy
2. We are modifying our copy
3. We are distributing it our copy as well as the original.

Subject the to the condition that we maintain a copy of the original License, which we have.

We have upheld the terms of this contract.

[javaguru]

Hi @damienwebdev

Ok you respect the license but this forked project loses the spirit of his conceptor..

Was it the deal for @Marak to regain his account back on Github ?
(@Marak closed the original project)

Just a legitim question for me.. and many others coders.

[damienwebdev]

@javaguru what Marak wants to do with his codebase and career is entirely his right.

Similarly, what I elect to do with my fork is entirely my right, assuming I abide by the original license terms (which this project does).

At the end of Marak's fork, there were ~250 contributors and about 1500 commits.

This means that, at the very least, ~16% of "Marak's project" wasn't Marak's.

He decided to throw away all of their effort without asking them (examples can be provided, simply ask @Moosh-be )

We disagreed with that decision.

Anything beyond these considerations is moot.

[Shinigami92]

I assume you have read #52 (reply in thread)

It is not illegal and even forking is a common standard in open source.

The license is also still valid as before and just taken over, see

faker/LICENSE

Lines 26 to 39 in a973ee1

	===
	From: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/commit/a9f98046c7d5eeaabe12fc587024c06d683800b8
	To: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/commit/29234378807c4141588861f69421bf20b5ac635e
	Based on faker.js, copyright Marak Squires and contributor, what follows below is the original license.
	===
	faker.js - Copyright (c) 2020
	Marak Squires
	http://github.com/marak/faker.js/
	faker.js was inspired by and has used data definitions from:

If you really think this repo/fork is illegal, so please also report every other fork that was created after 04. January 2022.
Good luck with that 🤷.
Spoiler: You can invest your time in better stuff than this.

[fzn0x]

All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; especially forked and modified.

[ghost]

Please note that Marak Squires holds the copyright of this project. Under the rules of contract law, Marak might be possible to revoke your license.

As well, the trademark is not under the MIT-license. You are not allowed to continue using trademark "faker.js".

So please stop hosting this repository immediately.

[prisis]

Good that we dont call this faker.js.

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License to understand what a MIT license is and how it can be used.

Spoiler: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4804%3A4837d9.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=+faker.js&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query faker.js is not registerd as a trademark.

[poyea]

Because the copyright notice is included here, it permits what people are working on here, including any modification, or even "selling" in the sense of receiving sponsorship. Despite this, actually, I'd love to see what GitHub's actions will be, if any.

[poyea]

I'd suggest we add/modify a paragraph on https://fakerjs.dev/update.html, so that a static reference is provided to avoid any copyright-related dispute.

[JessicaSachs]

(Being completely serious here, no snark: PRs welcome. Not sure what you’d expect to see written up.)

[rostislav-simonik]

Let's abandon any discussion about Marak, it's not worth of time. He is little sprat who doesn't know how to behave. He violated anything good that is on OSS. If he didn't see light at the end of the tunnel, he should just write on readme if somebody else can take over, and then to transfer ownership to given maintainers. Instead, he has taken damage-causing actions, because his business plan didn't go as he expected. I'm wondering if anybody would consider hiring anymore, with such reference he can start planting trees in New Zealand.

[wsdjeg]

Deleting source code is very wrong, but so is violating copyright!