@Shamar Just email him: rms@gnu.org
I guarantee he'll respond. Probably just a link to this, though: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
@Shamar Ah, yeah, I didn't know rms also liked that meme hustler article. Also familiar with it, but much newer to me. Interesting that O'Reilly is the one who put all the money behind the initial open source campaign!
@Shamar @JordiGH
Feel bad that someone uses your code? Do not contribute. Never expect anything out of #opensource project other than you getting to use that project with your itches scratched. True freedom is not caring. Once your code is out there it is no longer yours. Most of the time it isn't even anything special, it is just a number of hours you put in. GPL is also not freedom. What's so libre about license restricting me how I can use the code? #DontBeButthurt
@Shamar I never said that removal of your copyright was a good thing. It is at very least unfair. Its just that sometimes people overvalue their code and then have baseless regrets about sharing it or release it under "free" license that makes it unusable in most projects. If i were in your place i would still fight for copyright to be reinstated though.
@Shamar Well... That thread seems like a very touchy subject. Maybe instead of saying what you should do i will say what i would have done. Your contributions are in git history forever, copyright notice in the files or not. Based on that and on license at time of contributing i do not see how you using your own contributions could be in danger.
@Shamar I myself never add copyright with my name if i do not create file, and very rarely if i do. Depends on the project. However I would demand note in AUTHORS or similar file. Bragging rights are important :)
Did you noticed that they git rebased the whole repository?
Indeed I'm not listed anymore at https://github.com/Harvey-OS/harvey/graphs/contributors
Despite I'm still present in the original history at my old github fork https://github.com/Shamar/harvey/graphs/contributors
The fact is that probably you are too young to consider time in your reasoning.
What if ten years from now, new maintainers rebase the whole history as a single commit, move elsewhere (say GitLab) remove the GitHub repo, and sue me for using my own code? All in good faith!
@Shamar I know very well what git rebase does... I think i get what happened now.. Links to your commits in first issue post are working, but they are probably just cached by github. So they removed your changes by rebasing master branch of their repository? Working links to your commits really threw me off here. And they rebased master branch of their repo. What a mess.. People smart enough to make OS should know better, or so i thought. Sucks this happened, im sorry man :|
@Shamar Ok they rebased entire history. But you pointed out multiple commits by yourself in Harvey-OS/harvey repository. Rebasing after all is replaying git commits. Although the fact that github no longer shows you as contributor is strange. But i still dont see how you can be sued for using your changes as your ownership is proven by git history. If all else fails there also is a project license that can not be revoked retroactively.