You are absolutely violating GPL3 and MIT licenses and making malicious competition

[Tomatto1123]

Some stuff was found on https://github.com/LuminolMC/AboutCanvas/

The another part : kennytv/list-of-shame#108

[realfraze]

Can't say I understand the purported violation. Attribution in GPLv3 is optional, and no MIT code is linked in either of the examples provided.

Skidding may be a sin, but it does not violate the license. At least not GPLv3.

[Tomatto1123]

Can't say I understand the purported violation. Attribution in GPLv3 is optional, and no MIT code is linked in either of the examples provided.

Skidding may be a sin, but it does not violate the license. At least not GPLv3.

Your claim that "attribution in GPLv3 is optional" misstates the license. GPLv3 doesn't have an "attribution" clause in the soft, academic-citation sense — it has mandatory notice-preservation and modification-disclosure requirements, and both are framed with "must," not "may" or "should."
Section 4 (Conveying Verbatim Copies) states:

"You must keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program."

Section 5 (Conveying Modified Source Versions) adds, as a condition on top of that:

"a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date."

These aren't optional courtesies. They're conditions attached to the grant of rights to copy, modify, and distribute. Removing copyright notices and stripping the comments that identified the code's origin doesn't skip an optional step — it fails to satisfy a mandatory precondition for propagating the work at all.
You're conflating GPLv3 with MIT's lighter-weight notice requirement. MIT asks you to retain a copyright/permission notice; GPLv3 goes further, requiring both notice preservation and an affirmative statement that the file was modified, with a date. Whether or not any MIT-licensed code is involved is irrelevant to this analysis — the notices at issue originate from a GPLv3-licensed codebase, and GPLv3's own terms govern their removal, independent of anything MIT does or doesn't require.
The consequence is spelled out in Section 8 (Termination):

"You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License..."

So this isn't a matter of "skidding is a moral failing but not a license violation." Deleting the required notices and modification statements is itself the violation, and under Section 8 it automatically terminates your rights to the work — meaning continued distribution after that point isn't just non-compliant, it's unauthorized. If reinstatement under Section 8's cure provision (correcting the violation within 30 days of first notice, for a first-time violation) is relevant, that's a separate question — but it doesn't retroactively make the original removal permissible.
If you have a specific clause you believe supports the "optional" reading, quote it

[ytnoos]

Claude please write the best answer to actually be right in this discussion, make no mistakes

Claude please write the best answer to actually be right in this discussion, make no mistakes

😰😰😰

[realfraze]

Now I must say I'm even more confused. I was specifically referring to clause 7, whose terms are opt-in, because I was assuming your complaint was that Canvas neglected to give credit to Luminol.

All the text you copied and pasted simply does not say what you claim it does.

"You must keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program."

Fortunately, Canvas is also GPLv3, so you have no grounds there. This clause refers to the license itself, not to attribution.

"a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date."

This clause's purpose is to mark that it is not the original work, to avoid impersonation. Unless you are claiming that most of the world's forks / modifications / derived works are in open violation of the clause, it seems that commit date and the project openly stating to be a separate thing have that one covered.

stripping the comments that identified the code's origin doesn't skip an optional step

You just made that up. Even if your claims were true - they aren't - the idea that // Luminol start is somehow explicitly covered by the GPL license is pure fantasy.

[BaconCat1]

Why are we fighting over this anyways - don't canvas and luminol have pretty similar goals?

[realfraze]

Why are we fighting over this anyways - don't canvas and luminol have pretty similar goals?

honestly, to kill time while on the toilet

[Jsinco]

#249 does not look like it was taken from Luminol (at least the commit you sent). They're both Folia forks so the sequence of them doing things is similar but other than that, not really anything else. What in particular about this commit/pr are you scrutinizing?

[krolik-exe]

Archiving all your repos, deleting Luminol and using ur alt ain’t tuff

[x64catgirl]

Canvas be like:

[ShintoKosei]

lol

[Ayan-520]

Why are we fighting over this anyways - don't canvas and luminol have pretty similar goals?

I will use the money you earn to make donations and claim that it's mine. I hope you will also say that we are both contributing to the world.😂😂😂