7 ms·

Not true

66 points by choult 6y ago

kevsim 6y ago
Well, he handled that well :-)
- dpbriggs 6y ago
  Seriously. The repeated juvenile comments attacking the person who asked for attribution left a sour taste in my mouth.
  - NSMyself 6y ago
    He's also teaching a course on Ethical Hacking which just makes this even more bizarre.
    - majewsky 6y ago
      Maybe that's a typo and it's actually Ethics Hacking? :)
  - Proven 6y ago
    In the comments: "MIT doesn't explicitly require any sort of attribution." I haven't verified that, but if that is right, the forker isn't wrong. In that situation it is both childish and annoying to insist on attribution.
    - dpbriggs 6y ago
      Of course, you legally aren't obligated to attribute. There may even be valid ethical reasons for not wanting to attribute. It's not a good reflection of character to make immature jabs and denigrate the person asking as a 'junior developer', as if that's a personality flaw. All you need to say is: Thanks for bringing this up, but I am not obligated nor feel that I should attribute. Thank you.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      MIT contains: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That sounds like requiring attribution? EDIT: But yeah, only attribution in the actual code (and maybe binaries? IANAL...); I wouldn't read that as requiring attribution in the readme.
- DavidVoid 6y ago
  Especially for someone who titles themselves as a "Chief Marketing Officer".
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I'd be more concerned that someone working in software uses "junior developer" as an insult.
claudiawerner 6y ago
A very similar thing happened to me a few months ago. A couple of years ago I had written a certain small piece of web software (about 1.2k lines long) and put it on GitHub. On Wikipedia, I saw that there was some software which did the same thing, which I'd never heard of before. Interested to see how it was implemented, I browsed the files in their GitHub repo and saw my exact code in there, with a few tweaks and improvements made by someone else. I didn't appear to be credited. This was all complicated by the fact I released the code initially under a public domain license. However, I forgot that I used a small snippet of some GPL code, and re-licensed to GPL a few days later. Unfortunately, I hadn't made any concrete change to the code after relicensing, so I couldn't tell if the public domain version or the GPL version of my code was 'stolen' (for lack of a better word). When I alerted the project owner about this matter on their Discord server, with all the good will I could manage (the only way I could find to contact them), a sizable project of ~20 people, my message was deleted and I was banned. In the end, they added credit to me for the code (and my code was their entire project, plus some bugfixes), but I don't think they relicensed to GPLv3. I doubt the author of the GPL'd snippet would bother to pursue it.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  In all fairness, if they derived from the public domain version then they have no reason to relicense to GPLv3. The rest of it is at best impolite, though.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    The point was that I mistakenly used a snippet of GPLv3 licensed code (which was explicitly licensed in the snippet), and then mistakenly licensed the whole thing as public domain. I think it may have been illegal for me to say that it's public domain if I used that snippet. That's why I quickly relicensed. However, git commit history is forever, and one git commit contains the GPL snippet + my public domain declaration.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      Ah, I misunderstood; yeah, a combination of PD+GPLv3 would have to be GPLv3
datenhorst 6y ago
I get the feeling that the owner didn't quite understand the request and promptly freaked out.
jamil7 6y ago
That was hard to read.
typingmonkey 6y ago
That is the reason why I let issues that sound bad, uncommented for at least one day. When you read it later again, you have a completely different mind about it, often a better one.
dgb23 6y ago
Is this real?
- Jowsey 6y ago
  Certainly seems so, unfortunately.
chownie 6y ago
The line of defense here is really strange, in order the author runs a whole gamut 1. No this code is original, it's not copied 2. Yes it's copied but it's MIT so it's okay 3. No actually they copied me and being MIT means you can't sue me 4. You are a "junior" developer and actually you're jealous of my achievements which is why you made this issue 5. "Loser" 6. Author locks the PR 7. Author renames the PR to hide it 8. Author archives the whole project, but takes some time first to write his rebuttal in the PR where no one can reply Really bizarre response
- PedroBatista 6y ago
  No rationality here, he knows he "got caught" and from there his clearly out-sized ego took the wheel.
- rvz 6y ago
  This reaction looks like he's more guilty in this situation and his infant-like behaviour is shown here. While it's MIT and allows him to modify, improve, etc he didn't read this last sentence in the archriss/react-native-image-gallery library: ...provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. No credit was given despite having a 98% derived copy of the source. After (3), the 'argument' descends into personal attacks. He definitely knows he's in the wrong and is smoke-screening the discussion by locking, archiving and hiding the PR, like a 'professional lead senior developer'.
PedroBatista 6y ago
Our "industry" is in a perpetual state of juvenile teenage behavior and right now the frontend-dev sector takes the cake.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  I think it's unfair to say that based on this one maintainer; these things make "the news" because they are abnormal, or at least unexpected. I think the perception therefore is "florida man" syndrome, where better reporting confounds straight comparisons.
casperb 6y ago
Luckily I handled it better (I think) when it happened to me in 2015. I forked a MIT licensed project and improved it because it was a mess but useful. Turned out that project was copied from another project that was LGPLv3 licensed but all license/copyright info was removed. He was a bit aggressive about it, what I understand if someone steals your code without mentioning you. The violation notice: https://github.com/picqer/php-barcode-generator/issues/3 https://github.com/picqer/php-barcode-generator/issues/3
falcolas 6y ago
I’ve thought about this quite a bit lately, and if you want attribution in copies of your code, make it part of your license. This guy mucked up the communication, but in the end all he really had to say was “no”, and nobody has a right (moral or legal) to say otherwise, because the original writers had the opportunity to require attribution and explicitly chose not to.
- augbog 6y ago
  It just seems barbaric and insensitive that people can be okay with not attributing someone because they forgot a line to say or do so. At least ask unless the person has something that explicitly says, feel free to copy my work as your own! This is the essence of ethics right?
Tepix 6y ago
Oh my. He has fitting quotes on his web page: "How you handle criticism will define you." "If you have character, that statement will change your life. If you have no character, you'll remain an average complaining hater like most other people." "A man's character is not judge by how he celebrates a victory, but by what he does when his back is against the wall." - John Cena
- drcongo 6y ago
  Careful on that site, seems to be making calls to PayPal and Stripe.
qalmakka 6y ago
This whole thing is utterly mental. I think that given that for many FOSS development is just a non-paid hobby, a bit of self promotion can be tolerated, but straight copying without not even a single mention of the original creator is immoral, permissive licence or not.
Bedon292 6y ago
Interestingly. Neither https://github.com/archriss/react-native-image-gallery https://github.com/archriss/react-native-image-gallery nor https://github.com/ldn0x7dc/react-native-gallery https://github.com/ldn0x7dc/react-native-gallery , which it attributes as the original, have a license anywhere that I can find. So isn't the default to assume all rights reserved? https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi...
Chris2048 6y ago
Would be interested in knowing why this was flagged.

Not true

66 points by choult 6y ago

kevsim 6y ago

Well, he handled that well :-)

dpbriggs 6y ago
Seriously. The repeated juvenile comments attacking the person who asked for attribution left a sour taste in my mouth.
- NSMyself 6y ago
  He's also teaching a course on Ethical Hacking which just makes this even more bizarre.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    Maybe that's a typo and it's actually Ethics Hacking? :)
- Proven 6y ago
  In the comments: "MIT doesn't explicitly require any sort of attribution." I haven't verified that, but if that is right, the forker isn't wrong. In that situation it is both childish and annoying to insist on attribution.
  - dpbriggs 6y ago
    Of course, you legally aren't obligated to attribute. There may even be valid ethical reasons for not wanting to attribute. It's not a good reflection of character to make immature jabs and denigrate the person asking as a 'junior developer', as if that's a personality flaw. All you need to say is: Thanks for bringing this up, but I am not obligated nor feel that I should attribute. Thank you.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    MIT contains: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That sounds like requiring attribution? EDIT: But yeah, only attribution in the actual code (and maybe binaries? IANAL...); I wouldn't read that as requiring attribution in the readme.
DavidVoid 6y ago
Especially for someone who titles themselves as a "Chief Marketing Officer".
- Chris2048 6y ago
  I'd be more concerned that someone working in software uses "junior developer" as an insult.

claudiawerner 6y ago

A very similar thing happened to me a few months ago. A couple of years ago I had written a certain small piece of web software (about 1.2k lines long) and put it on GitHub. On Wikipedia, I saw that there was some software which did the same thing, which I'd never heard of before. Interested to see how it was implemented, I browsed the files in their GitHub repo and saw my exact code in there, with a few tweaks and improvements made by someone else. I didn't appear to be credited. This was all complicated by the fact I released the code initially under a public domain license. However, I forgot that I used a small snippet of some GPL code, and re-licensed to GPL a few days later. Unfortunately, I hadn't made any concrete change to the code after relicensing, so I couldn't tell if the public domain version or the GPL version of my code was 'stolen' (for lack of a better word). When I alerted the project owner about this matter on their Discord server, with all the good will I could manage (the only way I could find to contact them), a sizable project of ~20 people, my message was deleted and I was banned. In the end, they added credit to me for the code (and my code was their entire project, plus some bugfixes), but I don't think they relicensed to GPLv3. I doubt the author of the GPL'd snippet would bother to pursue it.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
In all fairness, if they derived from the public domain version then they have no reason to relicense to GPLv3. The rest of it is at best impolite, though.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  The point was that I mistakenly used a snippet of GPLv3 licensed code (which was explicitly licensed in the snippet), and then mistakenly licensed the whole thing as public domain. I think it may have been illegal for me to say that it's public domain if I used that snippet. That's why I quickly relicensed. However, git commit history is forever, and one git commit contains the GPL snippet + my public domain declaration.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood; yeah, a combination of PD+GPLv3 would have to be GPLv3

datenhorst 6y ago

I get the feeling that the owner didn't quite understand the request and promptly freaked out.

jamil7 6y ago

That was hard to read.

typingmonkey 6y ago

That is the reason why I let issues that sound bad, uncommented for at least one day. When you read it later again, you have a completely different mind about it, often a better one.

dgb23 6y ago

Is this real?

Jowsey 6y ago
Certainly seems so, unfortunately.

chownie 6y ago

The line of defense here is really strange, in order the author runs a whole gamut 1. No this code is original, it's not copied 2. Yes it's copied but it's MIT so it's okay 3. No actually they copied me and being MIT means you can't sue me 4. You are a "junior" developer and actually you're jealous of my achievements which is why you made this issue 5. "Loser" 6. Author locks the PR 7. Author renames the PR to hide it 8. Author archives the whole project, but takes some time first to write his rebuttal in the PR where no one can reply Really bizarre response

PedroBatista 6y ago
No rationality here, he knows he "got caught" and from there his clearly out-sized ego took the wheel.
rvz 6y ago
This reaction looks like he's more guilty in this situation and his infant-like behaviour is shown here. While it's MIT and allows him to modify, improve, etc he didn't read this last sentence in the archriss/react-native-image-gallery library: ...provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. No credit was given despite having a 98% derived copy of the source. After (3), the 'argument' descends into personal attacks. He definitely knows he's in the wrong and is smoke-screening the discussion by locking, archiving and hiding the PR, like a 'professional lead senior developer'.

PedroBatista 6y ago

Our "industry" is in a perpetual state of juvenile teenage behavior and right now the frontend-dev sector takes the cake.

Chris2048 6y ago
I think it's unfair to say that based on this one maintainer; these things make "the news" because they are abnormal, or at least unexpected. I think the perception therefore is "florida man" syndrome, where better reporting confounds straight comparisons.

casperb 6y ago

Luckily I handled it better (I think) when it happened to me in 2015. I forked a MIT licensed project and improved it because it was a mess but useful. Turned out that project was copied from another project that was LGPLv3 licensed but all license/copyright info was removed. He was a bit aggressive about it, what I understand if someone steals your code without mentioning you. The violation notice: https://github.com/picqer/php-barcode-generator/issues/3 https://github.com/picqer/php-barcode-generator/issues/3

falcolas 6y ago

I’ve thought about this quite a bit lately, and if you want attribution in copies of your code, make it part of your license. This guy mucked up the communication, but in the end all he really had to say was “no”, and nobody has a right (moral or legal) to say otherwise, because the original writers had the opportunity to require attribution and explicitly chose not to.

augbog 6y ago
It just seems barbaric and insensitive that people can be okay with not attributing someone because they forgot a line to say or do so. At least ask unless the person has something that explicitly says, feel free to copy my work as your own! This is the essence of ethics right?

Tepix 6y ago

Oh my. He has fitting quotes on his web page: "How you handle criticism will define you." "If you have character, that statement will change your life. If you have no character, you'll remain an average complaining hater like most other people." "A man's character is not judge by how he celebrates a victory, but by what he does when his back is against the wall." - John Cena

drcongo 6y ago
Careful on that site, seems to be making calls to PayPal and Stripe.

qalmakka 6y ago

This whole thing is utterly mental. I think that given that for many FOSS development is just a non-paid hobby, a bit of self promotion can be tolerated, but straight copying without not even a single mention of the original creator is immoral, permissive licence or not.

Bedon292 6y ago

Interestingly. Neither https://github.com/archriss/react-native-image-gallery https://github.com/archriss/react-native-image-gallery nor https://github.com/ldn0x7dc/react-native-gallery https://github.com/ldn0x7dc/react-native-gallery , which it attributes as the original, have a license anywhere that I can find. So isn't the default to assume all rights reserved? https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi...

Chris2048 6y ago

Would be interested in knowing why this was flagged.