3 ms·

You absolutely should have included that detail in your article. It completely changes the story and it's highly unethical to exclude it. It's still wrong for

You absolutely should have included that detail in your article. It completely changes the story and it's highly unethical to exclude it. It's still wrong for Al Jazeera to use your code without licensing it, but you need to let your readers have all the facts. Without that detail, I was rather curious why de volkskrant wasn't also upset.

jpgvm 10y ago
At no point in his blog post was it even implied that the content was stolen, only the frontend code which appears to be generated by their proprietary frontend tool. I don't think the blog post does anything unethical to not clarify this further as it seems fairly obvious the contention is about the code copyright and hotlinking.
- danso 10y ago
  Here's the changelog for the post: https://github.com/scrollytelling/website/commit/21e9c8ba8f6bdbcc87aadc2eb751c424303549f2 https://github.com/scrollytelling/website/commit/21e9c8ba8f6... I mean, with a sentence like this, it's hard not to jump to the conclusion that there's more than hotlinking and code copyright going on: "We know you love us Al-Jazeera, but stealing from us and then ignoring us is not the way to express it." I wouldn't call them unethical, just incomplete. We have a case here where someone paid Scrollytellio to create a story in their content-management system. Their system is such that, to a layperson (which I assume the reporter is when it comes to webdev), the code and presentation is inextricable from the content. The reporter was wrong, but that's just one level of confusion and ambiguity where it's possible to understand why AJ messed up. Even more confusing is that AJ itself uses the same open-source tech that ScrollyTelling does: https://twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777535017383845890 https://twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777535017383845890 https://twitter.com/pageflow_io/status/777562569468964864 https://twitter.com/pageflow_io/status/777562569468964864 A web dev/producer at a media company not knowing the difference between the open-source code they've used in the past, and the modified version that a freelancer has given to them for this one package? Yeah, incompetent, but not malicious. Again, it doesn't excuse AJ, their web producer, and the reporter, for not following up with more speed. But I can see why it's more likely that incompetency is the culprit and not malice.

jpgvm 10y ago

At no point in his blog post was it even implied that the content was stolen, only the frontend code which appears to be generated by their proprietary frontend tool. I don't think the blog post does anything unethical to not clarify this further as it seems fairly obvious the contention is about the code copyright and hotlinking.

danso 10y ago
Here's the changelog for the post: https://github.com/scrollytelling/website/commit/21e9c8ba8f6bdbcc87aadc2eb751c424303549f2 https://github.com/scrollytelling/website/commit/21e9c8ba8f6... I mean, with a sentence like this, it's hard not to jump to the conclusion that there's more than hotlinking and code copyright going on: "We know you love us Al-Jazeera, but stealing from us and then ignoring us is not the way to express it." I wouldn't call them unethical, just incomplete. We have a case here where someone paid Scrollytellio to create a story in their content-management system. Their system is such that, to a layperson (which I assume the reporter is when it comes to webdev), the code and presentation is inextricable from the content. The reporter was wrong, but that's just one level of confusion and ambiguity where it's possible to understand why AJ messed up. Even more confusing is that AJ itself uses the same open-source tech that ScrollyTelling does: https://twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777535017383845890 https://twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777535017383845890 https://twitter.com/pageflow_io/status/777562569468964864 https://twitter.com/pageflow_io/status/777562569468964864 A web dev/producer at a media company not knowing the difference between the open-source code they've used in the past, and the modified version that a freelancer has given to them for this one package? Yeah, incompetent, but not malicious. Again, it doesn't excuse AJ, their web producer, and the reporter, for not following up with more speed. But I can see why it's more likely that incompetency is the culprit and not malice.