3 ms·

Be careful guys. The original repo is open3d.org open-3d.org is a copy of open3d repo. This repo squashed all the commit history of open3d contributors.

integricho 9y ago
I find no explanation for the fork, anyone knows the reason?
- taspeotis 9y ago
  https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321
codetrotter 9y ago
I'm all for being able to fork, but 1. Squashing the commit history is not a very nice thing to do IMO. 2. When you fork as in you actually plan on taking the code in another direction you should come up with a name of your own. For example, GraphicsMagick forked from ImageMagick all the way back in 2002 and they came up with a name of their own as one should. The GraphicsMagick website even displays the following message prominently on their website http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ to this day: > GraphicsMagick is originally derived from ImageMagick 5.5.2 as of November 2002 but has been completely independent of the ImageMagick project since then. Since the fork from ImageMagick many improvements have been made (see NEWS) by many authors using an open development model but without breaking the API or utilities operation. That's the proper way to fork. You don't just take somebody else's project and stick with the name that they were using unless you have their blessing to do so. The Open3D fork website at http://www.open-3d.org/ http://www.open-3d.org/ is giving the impression that maintenance of the project was handed over by its original creators; > Although the Open3D project is currently maintained by the Open3D community, it was initiated by Qianyi Zhou and Jaesik Park, who have wrote a paper, and they ask you to kindly cite it! Meanwhile in the GitHub issue at https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 that was linked in a sibling comment, one of the original authors of Open3D says, among other things: > Only the code is under MIT license. The website is not. You should not use any materials from the www.open3d.org website without our permission. and > Open3D is a branded name we own. You can say your project is a fork of the Open3D project but you cannot claim your project is Open3D. A hostile fork if I ever saw one. In light of this, and seeing as how the original is still maintained, I think the mods should change the OP link from http://www.open-3d.org/ http://www.open-3d.org/ to http://www.open3d.org/ http://www.open3d.org/
sctb 9y ago
OK, we've updated the link from http://www.open-3d.org/ http://www.open-3d.org/, which references this as the original work.

integricho 9y ago

I find no explanation for the fork, anyone knows the reason?

taspeotis 9y ago
https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321

codetrotter 9y ago

I'm all for being able to fork, but 1. Squashing the commit history is not a very nice thing to do IMO. 2. When you fork as in you actually plan on taking the code in another direction you should come up with a name of your own. For example, GraphicsMagick forked from ImageMagick all the way back in 2002 and they came up with a name of their own as one should. The GraphicsMagick website even displays the following message prominently on their website http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ to this day: > GraphicsMagick is originally derived from ImageMagick 5.5.2 as of November 2002 but has been completely independent of the ImageMagick project since then. Since the fork from ImageMagick many improvements have been made (see NEWS) by many authors using an open development model but without breaking the API or utilities operation. That's the proper way to fork. You don't just take somebody else's project and stick with the name that they were using unless you have their blessing to do so. The Open3D fork website at http://www.open-3d.org/ http://www.open-3d.org/ is giving the impression that maintenance of the project was handed over by its original creators; > Although the Open3D project is currently maintained by the Open3D community, it was initiated by Qianyi Zhou and Jaesik Park, who have wrote a paper, and they ask you to kindly cite it! Meanwhile in the GitHub issue at https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 https://github.com/IntelVCL/Open3D/issues/321 that was linked in a sibling comment, one of the original authors of Open3D says, among other things: > Only the code is under MIT license. The website is not. You should not use any materials from the www.open3d.org website without our permission. and > Open3D is a branded name we own. You can say your project is a fork of the Open3D project but you cannot claim your project is Open3D. A hostile fork if I ever saw one. In light of this, and seeing as how the original is still maintained, I think the mods should change the OP link from http://www.open-3d.org/ http://www.open-3d.org/ to http://www.open3d.org/ http://www.open3d.org/

sctb 9y ago

OK, we've updated the link from http://www.open-3d.org/ http://www.open-3d.org/, which references this as the original work.