zlacker

>>infodr+(OP)
Lerna was released with an MIT license as was Rush.

So, nothing was stolen and if the story is true, the only infraction here would be that the Lerna copyright line was not included in the Rush license.

>>hunger+1b
Which is one of the very few things they are required to do. Following the clauses in the MIT license is not really rocket surgery.

>>bjoli+gc
That's exactly what I said - that was the only infraction.

What part of my comment are you disagreeing with??

Copyright infringement is not theft.

>>hunger+Gc
Simple. Distributing MIT-licensed code without the original license disclosure is theft.

>>eeks+Ce
Incorrect.

“Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. ” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#"Theft"