9 ms·

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere so I thought I'd post it to see what you all think... IANAL, IMHO, etc. I searched for one of the unique tokens in the d

by gepoch 7y ago

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere so I thought I'd post it to see what you all think... IANAL, IMHO, etc. I searched for one of the unique tokens in the docs: https://www.google.com/search?q=0facda3319 https://www.google.com/search?q=0facda3319 That pulls up their SDK github repo: https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/doc/readme.md https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/doc/readme.... Which is published with a standard MIT license: https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/LICENSE.md Which says (among other things): "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Which may have significantly complicated their copyright claim if Otonomo includes the MIT license and attribution to smartcar.. At the same time, I can't find Otonomo's docs anywhere. Something to think about when setting up your GitHub license!

woah 7y ago
What a plot twist. How embarrassing for Smartcar to have written this whole blog post and tried to sue them.
- nameisu 7y ago
  haha
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- doublekill 7y ago
  Especially when using words like "illegally", probably without consulting a lawyer. May now be open to countersuit for accusing them of illegal behavior.
- mrgordon 7y ago
  Meh not really. The API client is MIT licensed but that doesn't mean the API itself is MIT licensed. Smartcar obviously would not release their server code as it is proprietary so the question becomes whether it is unethical or illegal to copy the design of it without seeing the code. Most people would also say it is unethical to copy your competitor's docs down to the examples and randomly generated tokens. Note that the docs in the blog post are not the same as the markdown document in the repo that appears to be MIT licensed. Since they copied the docs verbatim, I suspect they will change the docs very soon. I'd be quite ashamed if I were Otonomo. Whether they have to pay financial penalties or admit guilt in court, we'll see.
  - itake 7y ago
    This situation makes me think of the video game industry and people recreating self hosted World of Warcraft servers by reversing the client code. Blizzard was able to shut down the private servers. https://github.com/mangoszero/server https://github.com/mangoszero/server https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/07/blizzard-shuts-down-legacy-wow-fan-server-hours-after-it-goes-up/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/07/...
    - taneq 7y ago
      There are still plenty of active private servers running.
  - Archit3ch 7y ago
    > Most people would also say it is unethical to copy your competitor's docs down to the examples and randomly generated tokens. <standard not-a-lawyer disclaimer> Would it be okay if they changed the tokens and kept everything else? Who benefits from Otonomo changing the examples? Assuming a REST API is a non-enforceable contract for the sake of interoperability, it doesn't make sense for any party agreeing to it to "own" the contract itself, even if they were involved in writing it.
theclaw 7y ago
The MIT license appears to be on their client-side SDK. They are accusing Otonomo of cloning their API, not their SDK.
- ricardobeat 7y ago
  I was going to say the same, but it looks like the documentation mentioned is for the client indeed. If the client is MIT licensed, are you infringing on anything by writing a compatible API?
  - hathawsh 7y ago
    That question is the essence of the ongoing Oracle v. Google case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google....
    - clarle 7y ago
      I thought most people (including myself) on HN were in favor of Google in that case, that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable. What exactly is Smartcar's product? Is it just the API design? If so, I personally think this is in the same boat as that case, and I don't really see having the same API as copying either.
      - taytus 7y ago
        I agree that copyrighting and endpoint just because the request and response have the same structure is insane. The docs would be something different thou, but again, I don't know how the docs were licensed.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Nokia, Cisco and others in the telecomunication industry usually patent network endpoints.
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dmh2000 7y ago
In Github terms of service, if you make a repo public, others are free to view and fork it, apparently even if you place a commercial license on it, or no license. The lawyers will have to figure out if that means copy, use or whatever. https://help.github.com/en/articles/licensing-a-repository https://help.github.com/en/articles/licensing-a-repository
- intertextuality 7y ago
  I believe this is a big problem with git or any of the current repo gui providers. A repository should not be able to be forked if it doesn't have a SPDIX license. Or at the very least users should be able to turn off forking ability in the repo settings. It's usually not an issue but I have run into some small repositories that had no license, meaning I could -not- fork and modify for myself or a PR, legally. But this is not obvious at all unless you look for the license file or a manifest file.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    GitHub require you license public repos to allow others to fork it. Whether they can use it for a specific purpose is still questionable - but clicking the fork button on github is allowed. They agreed when they uploaded the code. Note that this is governed by GitHub’s TOS and supersedes anything in the License file.
    - intertextuality 7y ago
      > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking) So I can "perform" and "reproduce" content through forking, solely on Github. But I couldn't clone it, nor make modifications to my fork, if I read that correctly. It makes little sense and could be avoided altogether by disabling forking for un-licensed repositories. Or by simply giving all new projects a default (with an opt-out option for no license or alternate licenses).
pojntfx 7y ago
Yeah, AGPL-3.0 was invented for a reason.
mikorym 7y ago
> "...subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Which they did not do.

by gepoch 7y ago

woah 7y ago

What a plot twist. How embarrassing for Smartcar to have written this whole blog post and tried to sue them.

nameisu 7y ago
haha
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
doublekill 7y ago
Especially when using words like "illegally", probably without consulting a lawyer. May now be open to countersuit for accusing them of illegal behavior.
mrgordon 7y ago
Meh not really. The API client is MIT licensed but that doesn't mean the API itself is MIT licensed. Smartcar obviously would not release their server code as it is proprietary so the question becomes whether it is unethical or illegal to copy the design of it without seeing the code. Most people would also say it is unethical to copy your competitor's docs down to the examples and randomly generated tokens. Note that the docs in the blog post are not the same as the markdown document in the repo that appears to be MIT licensed. Since they copied the docs verbatim, I suspect they will change the docs very soon. I'd be quite ashamed if I were Otonomo. Whether they have to pay financial penalties or admit guilt in court, we'll see.
- itake 7y ago
  This situation makes me think of the video game industry and people recreating self hosted World of Warcraft servers by reversing the client code. Blizzard was able to shut down the private servers. https://github.com/mangoszero/server https://github.com/mangoszero/server https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/07/blizzard-shuts-down-legacy-wow-fan-server-hours-after-it-goes-up/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/07/...
  - taneq 7y ago
    There are still plenty of active private servers running.
- Archit3ch 7y ago
  > Most people would also say it is unethical to copy your competitor's docs down to the examples and randomly generated tokens. <standard not-a-lawyer disclaimer> Would it be okay if they changed the tokens and kept everything else? Who benefits from Otonomo changing the examples? Assuming a REST API is a non-enforceable contract for the sake of interoperability, it doesn't make sense for any party agreeing to it to "own" the contract itself, even if they were involved in writing it.

theclaw 7y ago

The MIT license appears to be on their client-side SDK. They are accusing Otonomo of cloning their API, not their SDK.

ricardobeat 7y ago
I was going to say the same, but it looks like the documentation mentioned is for the client indeed. If the client is MIT licensed, are you infringing on anything by writing a compatible API?
- hathawsh 7y ago
  That question is the essence of the ongoing Oracle v. Google case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google....
  - clarle 7y ago
    I thought most people (including myself) on HN were in favor of Google in that case, that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable. What exactly is Smartcar's product? Is it just the API design? If so, I personally think this is in the same boat as that case, and I don't really see having the same API as copying either.
    - taytus 7y ago
      I agree that copyrighting and endpoint just because the request and response have the same structure is insane. The docs would be something different thou, but again, I don't know how the docs were licensed.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Nokia, Cisco and others in the telecomunication industry usually patent network endpoints.
    - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dmh2000 7y ago

In Github terms of service, if you make a repo public, others are free to view and fork it, apparently even if you place a commercial license on it, or no license. The lawyers will have to figure out if that means copy, use or whatever. https://help.github.com/en/articles/licensing-a-repository https://help.github.com/en/articles/licensing-a-repository

intertextuality 7y ago
I believe this is a big problem with git or any of the current repo gui providers. A repository should not be able to be forked if it doesn't have a SPDIX license. Or at the very least users should be able to turn off forking ability in the repo settings. It's usually not an issue but I have run into some small repositories that had no license, meaning I could -not- fork and modify for myself or a PR, legally. But this is not obvious at all unless you look for the license file or a manifest file.
- jdsully 7y ago
  GitHub require you license public repos to allow others to fork it. Whether they can use it for a specific purpose is still questionable - but clicking the fork button on github is allowed. They agreed when they uploaded the code. Note that this is governed by GitHub’s TOS and supersedes anything in the License file.
  - intertextuality 7y ago
    > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking) So I can "perform" and "reproduce" content through forking, solely on Github. But I couldn't clone it, nor make modifications to my fork, if I read that correctly. It makes little sense and could be avoided altogether by disabling forking for un-licensed repositories. Or by simply giving all new projects a default (with an opt-out option for no license or alternate licenses).

pojntfx 7y ago

Yeah, AGPL-3.0 was invented for a reason.

mikorym 7y ago

> "...subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Which they did not do.