Another way to think about this is that those projects that have a more structured approach to documentation have a better chance at lasting longer, attracting more contributors, and making more lasting impacts
If it’s open source and the license allows it, I wouldn’t consider that stealing. If a fork gets more popular than the original, then it either addresses a major missing feature of the original or is simply more active. If this displeases the original dev, they can hopefully work it out with the maintainers of the fork. This is a feature of FOSS, not a bug.
That’s why FOSS ends up forking and forking
Imagine “stealing” a project just because you can write sensible documentation.
Another way to think about this is that those projects that have a more structured approach to documentation have a better chance at lasting longer, attracting more contributors, and making more lasting impacts
If it’s open source and the license allows it, I wouldn’t consider that stealing. If a fork gets more popular than the original, then it either addresses a major missing feature of the original or is simply more active. If this displeases the original dev, they can hopefully work it out with the maintainers of the fork. This is a feature of FOSS, not a bug.
Is it stealing if it’s been dead for 30 years? Or is it modernizing it?
What? We are talking about discord documented software.