Copyright claim.

[ymaxkrapzv]

Somehow, you managed to violate the MIT license -- which is not easy.

In this particular case, you actually place this repository under the MIT license with yourself as the copyright holder without giving any indication that the entirety of the work herein was actually performed by the parser library as written by @whitequark. What you can claim copyright for is, essentially, the test code and adding a few constants to Encoding.

[whitequark]

:+1: I'd like to see this fixed

[ymaxkrapzv]

Just noticed that this repository also distributes portions of the slop command-line option parser as written by @leejarvis (I'm assuming so that you could get parser to work), also licensed under the MIT license without proper adherence.

[leejarvis]

:+1: Please fix this

[HimeWorks]

Hi all,

I have updated the license with the projects and their authors that have been included in the distribution. Please review it and determine whether it is suitable.

Thanks.

[ymaxkrapzv]

I can't speak for either of the authors who wrote the libraries that you packaged and distributed, but I still don't understand what you're applying your own copyright claim to. Is it this?

$LOAD_PATH.unshift("System") unless $LOAD_PATH.include?("System")

# RM doesn't include these constants?
class Encoding
  BINARY = "ASCII-8BIT"
  UTF_8 = "utf-8"
  UTF_16LE = "utf-16le"
end

require 'parser/current'
p Parser::CurrentRuby.parse($RGSS_SCRIPTS[-2][3])

[HimeWorks]

Yes.

Are you concerned whether I am claiming the RPG Maker binaries as my own?

[ymaxkrapzv]

No -- I'm concerned that you're claiming copyright for defining a few constants, appending to the load path, and requiring an external library that actually does everything.

[HimeWorks]

What alternatives do you suggest?

[ymaxkrapzv]

...really? I'm not a lawyer, but what you provided is so trivial that I can't imagine that you can even claim any kind of copyright for it. Both @whitequark and @leejarvis licensed the work, copyrighted it, and earned it (and yes, I just added those mentions to get their input as well).

By the way, I hope you two don't mind the extra mentions, but am I missing something here? What would you two consider the appropriate action / how would you consider the issue fixed? Is it fixed already?

[whitequark]

@Solistra

No -- I'm concerned that you're claiming copyright for defining a few constants, appending to the load path, and requiring an external library that actually does everything.

I think that's OK. In my view there is no issue anymore.

[ymaxkrapzv]

@whitequark Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it. :)

[leejarvis]

Yes I think it's OK now too. @Solistra thank you for bringing this to attention, much appreciated. Thank you @HimeWorks for the quick fix.