Code lifted from Keymaster without attribution

[madrobby]

Hey there.

I'm a disappointed that this library lifts code directly from my Keymaster library without any attribution.
Here's my library: https://github.com/madrobby/keymaster

Your library is essentially a substantial clone, reusing most or all of my code.

The MIT license requires that you include the copyright statement. Please add this to the library or I will have to report this to Github.

[jaywcjlove]

@madrobby https://github.com/jaywcjlove/hotkeys/blob/2.x/README.md

[jaywcjlove]

@madrobby 请告知我添加到什么位置，我添加上去。

[jaywcjlove]

madrobby/keymaster#181

madrobby/keymaster#175

[madrobby]

I don’t speak Chinese, so I don’t know what you’re saying.

The MIT license requires that your include the whole license in any substantial copy of the software; in your case you should include the whole license file (not just a link) in both your README and in your LICENSE file.

Note that this isn’t optional or a goodwill gesture, the license you agreed to when using the code requires you to do so.

[jaywcjlove]

My English description is not accurate. Who will submit a PR?

[PabloLION]

I checked madrobby/keymaster and yes they are similar.
In the Chinese readme of Hotkey.js, the owner said it's a lift from and imitation of madrobby/keymaster. And seems that the keymaster repo is out of maintenance, there is no NPM install guide(though I see it is possible in the "issue"), no demo ( I just saw the test.html, although it is not technically a demo with right format) , no Chinese support, etc.
I admit that it is not righteous to copy some code and re-publish it. But when the origin repo is ignoring the PRs since years ago, I think the owner did what he could.

[madrobby]

I checked madrobby/keymaster and yes they are similar.
In the Chinese readme of Hotkey.js, the owner said it's a lift from and imitation of madrobby/keymaster. And seems that the keymaster repo is out of maintenance, there is no NPM install guide(though I see it is possible in the "issue"), no demo ( I just saw the test.html, although it is not technically a demo with right format) , no Chinese support, etc.
I admit that it is not righteous to copy some code and re-publish it. But when the origin repo is ignoring the PRs since years ago, I think the owner did what he could.

It doesn’t matter, at all, if a project is not maintained or defunct, that doesn’t change the requirements of the licensing.

Again: The MIT license requires that your include the whole license in any substantial copy of the software; in your case you should include the whole license file (not just a link) in both your README and in your LICENSE file.

Note that this isn’t optional or a goodwill gesture, the license you agreed to when using the code requires you to do so.

[phodal]

If you had copy code, you also need to add LICENSE in code.

Chinese version: 如果你直接复制了代码，还需要在对应的代码加上 MIT LICENSE。

Examples in VSCode:

/*---------------------------------------------------------
 * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
 *--------------------------------------------------------*/

import { IRawGrammar } from './types';
import * as plist from './plist';
import { DebugFlags } from './debug';
import { parse as manualParseJSON } from './json';

[PabloLION]

@madrobby. I totally agree. I think one should have the control and possession of what he created. You can report this to GitHub, or PR the README.

[yellow1912]

I see this one is updated?

https://github.com/jaywcjlove/hotkeys/blob/master/LICENSE