5 ms·

As someone who has over the years participated in and released many an open source project, and still maintains one, I don't like the framing in some of these H

As someone who has over the years participated in and released many an open source project, and still maintains one, I don't like the framing in some of these HN comments of the Octotree maintainer as The Bad Guy. Obviously, it is unethical and most likely illegal to unilaterally, summarily claim copyright or relicense other people's contributions, and I appreciate the matter-of-fact tone taken by the issue opener and the other commenter. However, I think it's obvious this isn't a scammer using open source as some kind of get-rich-quick scheme, putting in minimal effort into a fake open source project to attract highly valuable contributions in order to relicense them and make money off of other people's hard work. This someone who in all likelihood put blood, sweat, and tears into their project, gave it away for free on GitHub, accepted code contributions from people who in all likelihood were deriving a lot of value from Octotree (or else they wouldn't have had a pet issue they needed fixed in the first place), and has since grown frustrated by the time and effort costs, and the comparatively paltry returns. Is their frustration causing them to lash out in a damaging and unproductive way? Certainly. Is it okay to renege on the implicit agreement with contributors that their contributions be under the terms of the AGPL license, and act as if those contributions were of negligible value? Certainly not. Is the maintainer right in their feeling that the value of those contributions is most likely less than the value given away for free to those contributors? I mean...probably. I must really commend the noncombative, factual tone taken by the issue opener. And I hope the maintainer comes to their senses and deals with this problem the right way, by simply asking people nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772

jMyles 6y ago
I share your view in part, but I think you've ignored the basis for which the maintainer is reasonably understood as a malicious actor: it's not the overreaction, it's the deceit. They said that they had conducted a complete rewrite. There is no reason to do this other than to mislead and create a self-serving false narrative.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  And what is the malicious act? To get rich off of the highly profitable code in those pull requests? The "deceit" is saying whatever to get people to go away, not to hurt anyone, or to profit off of anyone else's hard work. The right thing to do is just to ask people to assign copyright (see eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772 ), but lacking the maturity do what a responsible adult needs to do is just immaturity, not malice.
  - ajarmst 6y ago
    You're correct that the motive is important in assessing the act, but so is the willingness to correct the issue when notified of it, and the manner in which one responds. "Immaturity" rapidly loses any cachet of innocence when it persists in the face of experience.
    - laughinghan 6y ago
      More important than motive is the real impact caused by the act. And the realistic harm caused by the refusal to ask people nicely for copyright assignment or to rewrite those contributions, other than to this person's own reputation, is pretty insignificant. This person just wants everyone to go away. It's disrespectful to the community, ill-mannered, and utterly graceless, but I find it hard to call it malicious.
cooltrbl 6y ago
The author IMHO can relicense their code to whatever their like. Based on package.json only one author mentioned, Buu Nguyen <buunguyen@gmail.com> [1]https://github.com/ovity/octotree/blob/master/package.json https://github.com/ovity/octotree/blob/master/package.json
- 013a 6y ago
  There are (at least) 66 distinct contributors, according to the commit history.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    Yep, lots of them are still the most recent author according to git-blame too: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719981875 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
  - cooltrbl 6y ago
    IMHO author have the ownership/copyright/legal, contributor just contribute the code not ownership of the software
- monoideism 6y ago
  I didn't flag your comment below, but just to be clear, at least in the US the law considers any individual contributor to be the copyright holder of their own code. They can assign or license it to someone else, but they're the original copyright owners of that code.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  Copyright ownership is not a matter of your opinion. It is settled law, mutually recognized by the 179 countries (out of the 195 in the world) who have signed the Berne Convention [1]. Copyright ownership is established as soon as a work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expresssion" [2]—in other words, as soon as the contributor wrote it on their laptop. The "author" entry in the package.json file is irrelevant. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention [2]: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/10/03/with-copyright-what-does-tangible-mean/ https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/10/03/with-copyright-wh...
hyiltiz 6y ago
The maintainer seems reluctant to come to senses, pity. https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1041 https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1041 Not only my issue got closed as a "spam", my account now has been blocked by "their organization". http://ix.io/2CCK/text http://ix.io/2CCK/text I really hope Github's learning and (job) recommendation algorithms do not take this into account.
- woofie11 6y ago
  The pathway is a DMCA takedown notice. It's rarely appropriate, but this is the time for it.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    A DMCA takedown can only be sent by the owners or someone acting on their behalf. (Though, microsoft is more than fine on making exceptions for the RIAA in the case of youtube-dl I doubt they will make an exception of individual devs)
    - user5994461 6y ago
      Legal twist: Since the project is under AGPL, this technically makes anybody who downloads/uses the project a copyright owner (you have the right to make copies), thus anybody could send a valid DMCA request to the repo. Obviously we're a bit in uncharted territory and there's some nuances and things vary by jurisdiction, it should be receivable one way or another, and it would take 10 years in court to really determine it.
      - Jasper_ 6y ago
        That is absolutely not how the AGPL nor (US) copyright law works. If I license someone else to make copies, they do not become a "copyright owner". You are allowed to make copies of the versions of the work released under AGPL, but not newer versions not released under those terms.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I have never heard of octotree before this, I haven't used it before, I don't plan to use it, and I don't have any stake in the outcome. Thus, that said, as a completely disinterested party, the Octotree maintainer really does appear to be doing his best to come off as The Bad Guy. All of his behavior in the relevant Github issues looks like someone who is having a tantrum and wanting to take his ball and go home. So, while I pretty much totally agree with everything you've written, especially the part about "I must really commend the noncombative, factual tone taken by the issue opener" it's also hard for me to fault others who are letting their annoyance show when simple, factual requests are met with tirades of assholery.
freedomben 6y ago
I agree with nearly everything you've said, except I would suggest that the maintainer himself started the framing of him as The Bad Guy. The thread has changed a lot since I first saw it, but right out of the gate the issuer opener was matter of fact and mostly respectful, and the maintainer called him a spammer and a troll and deleted his and other's stuff. I can't imagine you could do much better if you wanted people to think you're The Bad Guy.
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  It's been my observation over the years that there are people who troll for this sort of thing and they are good at saying things nicely but then they don't actually meet the criteria of being anyone who had their "rights" violated or are willing to do anything other than "go away" when the license is finally reapplied after harassment over a minutia with no actual harm being proved to an individual. They may be technically correct about the license concerns, but the absoluteness and blaming they do isn't worth the outcomes. I just closed the repo I'm working on to the public and will not be making it Open Source moving forward as I originally intended. I've been through this before myself, and it's just best to leave my code unlicensed and copyrighted by me. I'm grateful this ugly beast reared its head and reminded me how much vitriol non-contributors can deliver.
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    I just closed the repo I'm working on to the public and will not be making it Open Source moving forward as I originally intended. I'm really sorry to hear that, and while it is obviously 100% up to you, I hope you to reconsider. Every contribution to The Commons furthers the public good. Unlike the busybodies who care more about lecturing people about following the "rules" of "Open Source" to the letter, than about the spirit of fostering contributions to The Commons to further the public good, you clearly understand what actually matters. Don't let the annoying minority keep you from doing something you know will make a positive difference in the world. If you set clear boundaries and stay matter-of-fact, the public overall will back you. In the same spirit as the 4 "non-Free-Culture" Creative Commons licenses, I encourage you to check out non-open-source PolyForm software licenses, including a noncommercial license, a free trial license, etc: https://github.com/polyformproject/polyform-licenses#licenses https://github.com/polyformproject/polyform-licenses#license... Every contribution to The Commons furthers the public good, regardless of whether it's technically "Open Source" according to the Debian mailing list.

jMyles 6y ago

I share your view in part, but I think you've ignored the basis for which the maintainer is reasonably understood as a malicious actor: it's not the overreaction, it's the deceit. They said that they had conducted a complete rewrite. There is no reason to do this other than to mislead and create a self-serving false narrative.

laughinghan 6y ago
And what is the malicious act? To get rich off of the highly profitable code in those pull requests? The "deceit" is saying whatever to get people to go away, not to hurt anyone, or to profit off of anyone else's hard work. The right thing to do is just to ask people to assign copyright (see eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772 ), but lacking the maturity do what a responsible adult needs to do is just immaturity, not malice.
- ajarmst 6y ago
  You're correct that the motive is important in assessing the act, but so is the willingness to correct the issue when notified of it, and the manner in which one responds. "Immaturity" rapidly loses any cachet of innocence when it persists in the face of experience.
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    More important than motive is the real impact caused by the act. And the realistic harm caused by the refusal to ask people nicely for copyright assignment or to rewrite those contributions, other than to this person's own reputation, is pretty insignificant. This person just wants everyone to go away. It's disrespectful to the community, ill-mannered, and utterly graceless, but I find it hard to call it malicious.

cooltrbl 6y ago

The author IMHO can relicense their code to whatever their like. Based on package.json only one author mentioned, Buu Nguyen <buunguyen@gmail.com> [1]https://github.com/ovity/octotree/blob/master/package.json https://github.com/ovity/octotree/blob/master/package.json

013a 6y ago
There are (at least) 66 distinct contributors, according to the commit history.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  Yep, lots of them are still the most recent author according to git-blame too: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719981875 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
- cooltrbl 6y ago
  IMHO author have the ownership/copyright/legal, contributor just contribute the code not ownership of the software
monoideism 6y ago
I didn't flag your comment below, but just to be clear, at least in the US the law considers any individual contributor to be the copyright holder of their own code. They can assign or license it to someone else, but they're the original copyright owners of that code.
laughinghan 6y ago
Copyright ownership is not a matter of your opinion. It is settled law, mutually recognized by the 179 countries (out of the 195 in the world) who have signed the Berne Convention [1]. Copyright ownership is established as soon as a work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expresssion" [2]—in other words, as soon as the contributor wrote it on their laptop. The "author" entry in the package.json file is irrelevant. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention [2]: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/10/03/with-copyright-what-does-tangible-mean/ https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/10/03/with-copyright-wh...

hyiltiz 6y ago

The maintainer seems reluctant to come to senses, pity. https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1041 https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1041 Not only my issue got closed as a "spam", my account now has been blocked by "their organization". http://ix.io/2CCK/text http://ix.io/2CCK/text I really hope Github's learning and (job) recommendation algorithms do not take this into account.

woofie11 6y ago
The pathway is a DMCA takedown notice. It's rarely appropriate, but this is the time for it.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  A DMCA takedown can only be sent by the owners or someone acting on their behalf. (Though, microsoft is more than fine on making exceptions for the RIAA in the case of youtube-dl I doubt they will make an exception of individual devs)
  - user5994461 6y ago
    Legal twist: Since the project is under AGPL, this technically makes anybody who downloads/uses the project a copyright owner (you have the right to make copies), thus anybody could send a valid DMCA request to the repo. Obviously we're a bit in uncharted territory and there's some nuances and things vary by jurisdiction, it should be receivable one way or another, and it would take 10 years in court to really determine it.
    - Jasper_ 6y ago
      That is absolutely not how the AGPL nor (US) copyright law works. If I license someone else to make copies, they do not become a "copyright owner". You are allowed to make copies of the versions of the work released under AGPL, but not newer versions not released under those terms.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I have never heard of octotree before this, I haven't used it before, I don't plan to use it, and I don't have any stake in the outcome. Thus, that said, as a completely disinterested party, the Octotree maintainer really does appear to be doing his best to come off as The Bad Guy. All of his behavior in the relevant Github issues looks like someone who is having a tantrum and wanting to take his ball and go home. So, while I pretty much totally agree with everything you've written, especially the part about "I must really commend the noncombative, factual tone taken by the issue opener" it's also hard for me to fault others who are letting their annoyance show when simple, factual requests are met with tirades of assholery.

freedomben 6y ago

I agree with nearly everything you've said, except I would suggest that the maintainer himself started the framing of him as The Bad Guy. The thread has changed a lot since I first saw it, but right out of the gate the issuer opener was matter of fact and mostly respectful, and the maintainer called him a spammer and a troll and deleted his and other's stuff. I can't imagine you could do much better if you wanted people to think you're The Bad Guy.

kordlessagain 6y ago
It's been my observation over the years that there are people who troll for this sort of thing and they are good at saying things nicely but then they don't actually meet the criteria of being anyone who had their "rights" violated or are willing to do anything other than "go away" when the license is finally reapplied after harassment over a minutia with no actual harm being proved to an individual. They may be technically correct about the license concerns, but the absoluteness and blaming they do isn't worth the outcomes. I just closed the repo I'm working on to the public and will not be making it Open Source moving forward as I originally intended. I've been through this before myself, and it's just best to leave my code unlicensed and copyrighted by me. I'm grateful this ugly beast reared its head and reminded me how much vitriol non-contributors can deliver.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  I just closed the repo I'm working on to the public and will not be making it Open Source moving forward as I originally intended. I'm really sorry to hear that, and while it is obviously 100% up to you, I hope you to reconsider. Every contribution to The Commons furthers the public good. Unlike the busybodies who care more about lecturing people about following the "rules" of "Open Source" to the letter, than about the spirit of fostering contributions to The Commons to further the public good, you clearly understand what actually matters. Don't let the annoying minority keep you from doing something you know will make a positive difference in the world. If you set clear boundaries and stay matter-of-fact, the public overall will back you. In the same spirit as the 4 "non-Free-Culture" Creative Commons licenses, I encourage you to check out non-open-source PolyForm software licenses, including a noncommercial license, a free trial license, etc: https://github.com/polyformproject/polyform-licenses#licenses https://github.com/polyformproject/polyform-licenses#license... Every contribution to The Commons furthers the public good, regardless of whether it's technically "Open Source" according to the Debian mailing list.