My WAG on the redaction of copyright notices: some developer wanted to use the OS component without going through some approval process. If true, it points to an out of control process.
I believe the article. It was easy enough to verify and if not true it would have been easy to refute, which hasn't Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2013 4:26 AM, Kirk Wolf wrote: > >> News today: >> After bragging about using and contributing open source, >> healthcare.govviolated a open source license for a popular javascript >> UI toolkit: >> >> http://www.weeklystandard.com/**blogs/obamacare-website-** >> violates-licensing-agreement-**copyrighted-software_763666.**html<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-website-violates-licensing-agreement-copyrighted-software_763666.html> >> > > Why would they do that? I don't understand what they would gain from > removing a copyright. It's interesting that they closed the > github repo but as usual somebody cloned it https://github.com/** > Conservatory/healthcare.gov-**2013-10-01<https://github.com/Conservatory/healthcare.gov-2013-10-01> > . > > Kirk Wolf >> Dovetailed Technologies >> http://dovetail.com >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >> ---------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
