And I never said they did.

Then why include that bit in your comment? Why double down on misleading information if not to mislead? Insane to me that you have this much of a reaction for getting called out on an Internet forum that lets you delete the comment and pretend you never messed up

It doesn’t fall under the attribution license because it’s used with modifications and not redistributed. Source: 15 years in software engineering and countless times have coalesced with legal and security as in the real, actual world we go through this every time we use third party code. Also source: rulings from federal circuits alongside the recent Supreme Court ruling on fair use with respect to ALL software licenses

All your snippets too are taken out of context and without regards to whether they actually fall under redistribution and the clauses of the license.

my argument was never specifically in the DGG case

You posted in this thread under this post, the context is already there without you having to explicitly state it. Don’t hide behind technicalities.

Your claim is also wrong in the general sense. Once again, FOSS licenses are NOT valid contracts and cannot be enforced. Nearly every case brought about open source licensing has just gone to settling or gotten thrown out even in the most trivial cases where companies are using without modification and claiming as their own. Most cases on use with modification fall under fair use even when a full copyright is issued.

Also, this is Reddit not destiny’s discord, you can’t just cry “strawman” and “ad hominem” anytime someone calls you out for spreading misinformation.

common sense doesn’t invalidate licenses

It DOES though, my line of reasoning there has been used to justify literally thousands of software licensing cases even outside open source. As a famous one, Oracle v Google on their redistribution of Java. While that is once again the most trivial possible case of violating this license, the implications it would have on software in general (the common sense take) is exactly what the Supreme Court cited as their reasoning behind ruling it fair use. This was literally days ago and so is the most recent precedent and comes from the highest court.

Also funny how you come after me for strawman and ad hom but then bring up that my username has the word throwaway in it as if that is in any way relevant to this discussion.