License Terms

[mitchej123]

I'll note pieces of code are being taken from Hodgepodge which was previously licensed under the MIT license. This is allowed, however the terms of the original license grant include the following, with highlights below from me.

-- Start Excerpt -- 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:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. -- End Excerpt --

Please be sure the copyright notice, and permission notice are included in any files copied under the MIT license.

[SirFell]

Note the substantial portions of the Software part. Besides the only reason you can even consider mixins reused to be originally part of hodgepodge - because I've left names of people who originally contributed that code to hodgepodge.

I will not be licensing those files under MIT as they are not a substantial portion of Hodgepodge by any definition.

[mitchej123]

That is a rather bad faith response.

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2188

-- begin copy -- Substantial portion is a legal term. Its exact definition will depend on jurisdiction, be subject to interpretation and possibly including subjective analyses. When in doubt, ask a lawyer. To err on the safe side, assume that it applies to any portion, no matter the size.

To give you a random example, here's what Wikipedia has to say for Canadian copyright law (neither I, nor Wikipedia, are lawyers and cannot give legal advice, obviously):

What is a Substantial Part?

The Copyright Act does not require that an entire work be copied in order to find that a copyright holder’s rights have been infringed. Copying a substantial part of the work will be sufficiently actionable. In determining whether a substantial part of a work has been copied, the court must exclude from consideration any part of the work not properly the subject matter of copyright under s.3 of the Act.[6] The analysis is largely fact-driven, and the courts will consider both qualitative and quantitative matters. Some of the matters that have been considered include:

a) how central was the element taken to the first work?

b) do the selected parts constitute an essential characteristic of the work?

c) would people who see the copy recognize the source?

d) was the part taken used in a manner that would create a substitute to the first work and thereby jeopardize its economic exploitation? [economic damages can be considered] -- end copy --

[SirFell]

I am quite aware of legal meaning of Substantial Part. Bad faith response or not - amount copied is reasonable to be kept under our CC BY-ND v4.0.