3 ms·

From what I see, google-cloud-gemserver uses gemstash[1] but does not include its source. Am I somehow misunderstanding the accusation "You forked this repo fro

From what I see, google-cloud-gemserver uses gemstash[1] but does not include its source. Am I somehow misunderstanding the accusation "You forked this repo from the Gemstash repo"? [1]: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver/blob/d42da74fa9c1f139d49198d1ac38ebec20317063/Gemfile https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserve...

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
I'm on mobile so reading the code is hard, but after digging through much of both repos, this doesn't look like a fork at all. I see some code that looks like it's from gemstash, but that's far different than a fork -- not better, just significantly different, as evidenced by the comments here suggesting malice and license stripping. Is the allegation that it was forked and then more than half of gemstash deleted? Seriously, read the code, even the gem architecture is different. "I found some gemstash code which btw is MIT and can be embedded all day long" does not deserve lawyer threats, and I say that disliking Google. More embarrassed for the issue author here, who went straight for an outrage jugular without understanding the entire situation, and probably submitted this thread to HN too.
- lfowles 9y ago
  I wish I could do basic sentiment analysis on the comments to this post. It escalated quickly.
- mcguire 9y ago
  sillsm just responded: Hi Andre, I'm Max from Google's open source office. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We've stared at both repos, and we're having trouble finding any actual copy/pasted code between them. We don't strip license headers or change code licenses intentionally. We always aim to respect open source licenses. If we made a mistake here, please help us fix it. It looks like GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver depends on gemstash existing, but we can't find any copied code. It doesn't appear to be a fork. We'd really appreciate it if you could give us pointers to the code you think was copied from your project, so we can fix it.
atarian 9y ago
This is what I'm seeing as well. Seems like the only mistake the author made was forgetting to include the MIT license, which is not as nefarious as scrubbing it.
- bhhaskin 9y ago
  I don't think you need to include the MIT license if the source code is not included.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - steveklabnik 9y ago
    > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. There's no distinction between source and binary code.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      But there is a distinction between redistributing a work and merely referencing it. It doesn't look like this repository actually copies anything from the other, and just listing the other one as a dependency doesn't require including the license.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago

I'm on mobile so reading the code is hard, but after digging through much of both repos, this doesn't look like a fork at all. I see some code that looks like it's from gemstash, but that's far different than a fork -- not better, just significantly different, as evidenced by the comments here suggesting malice and license stripping. Is the allegation that it was forked and then more than half of gemstash deleted? Seriously, read the code, even the gem architecture is different. "I found some gemstash code which btw is MIT and can be embedded all day long" does not deserve lawyer threats, and I say that disliking Google. More embarrassed for the issue author here, who went straight for an outrage jugular without understanding the entire situation, and probably submitted this thread to HN too.

lfowles 9y ago
I wish I could do basic sentiment analysis on the comments to this post. It escalated quickly.
mcguire 9y ago
sillsm just responded: Hi Andre, I'm Max from Google's open source office. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We've stared at both repos, and we're having trouble finding any actual copy/pasted code between them. We don't strip license headers or change code licenses intentionally. We always aim to respect open source licenses. If we made a mistake here, please help us fix it. It looks like GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver depends on gemstash existing, but we can't find any copied code. It doesn't appear to be a fork. We'd really appreciate it if you could give us pointers to the code you think was copied from your project, so we can fix it.

atarian 9y ago

This is what I'm seeing as well. Seems like the only mistake the author made was forgetting to include the MIT license, which is not as nefarious as scrubbing it.

bhhaskin 9y ago
I don't think you need to include the MIT license if the source code is not included.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- steveklabnik 9y ago
  > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. There's no distinction between source and binary code.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    But there is a distinction between redistributing a work and merely referencing it. It doesn't look like this repository actually copies anything from the other, and just listing the other one as a dependency doesn't require including the license.