@vbhide @kukks @BTCPayServer the usual compliance concern for MIT licenses is giving attribution to the original project, as the license requires including the original copyright statement. E.g., see this case for the similar Artistic License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation#Jacobsen_v_Katzer_(2008)
@harding @vbhide @BTCPayServer pretty much just this. It's a project that has been copying all sorts of content from the MIT licenses repositories (content, code) for the past 2 years and they have been contacted various times to simply add the MIT license and be done with it but instead they either refuse to acknowledge or just play silly games where they add the license and remove it a few days later.
@kukks @harding @BTCPayServer depends on the jurisdiction theyre in. A first move in most countries would be to collect proof of non compliance before sending a notice claiming damages (mostly for moral harm in this case). Even if you dont want the money that should scare them enough to start complying. The precise way of doing it depends on the country though.
@kukks @BTCPayServer In a lot of cases, having a lawyer send a letter on official letterhead can get an issue cleared up, especially if you make clear that you don't plan to pursue any damages as long as the infringer comes into compliance quickly.
If that doesn't work, you can ask the lawyer about how much it costs to get the enforcement process to the point where the infringer receives a letter from the court. Most will give up and start complying at that point.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!