5 ms·

I'm confused, is there anyone with a stake/standing in this who is complaining, or did some outsider just come and accuse a random project owner of breaching a

I'm confused, is there anyone with a stake/standing in this who is complaining, or did some outsider just come and accuse a random project owner of breaching a contributor's license? If that's the case, this raises two questions: (a) How do they know a priori that the project owner hasn't cleared the license (maybe via a contract that they have no interest in publicly disclosing, or by believing [for whatever reason] they're too minor/fair use), and (b) Why are so many bystanders piling on and stirring up conflict in public trying to cancel this guy? Wouldn't it make sense to just let concerned contributors speak for themselves?

jhardy54 6y ago
The context is that someone asked for source and the maintainer lied: https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1038#issuecomment-717571135 https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1038#issuecomment-7... 1. That wasn't what was being challenged. The challenge was whether there was, in fact, a "complete rewrite", since the output files matched the AGPL source 1:1. 2. Do you mean me (Christian Bundy)? I asked a question because I was unhappy seeing the maintainer lie to one of my friends about the "complete rewrite". Lies bad, truth good. The licensing is the reason for the lie, not the reason for the investigation.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  First, it's far from clear to me he's lied (which is not equivalent to saying he didn't). So far as I see, it may well have been that (a) he honestly forgot there were some old lines still remaining that they didn't rewrite, (b) or he did know that, but he felt any vestiges of old code were insignificant and not enough to justify changing the sentence. If he rewrote like ~99% of the code, you might disagree about whether the remaining <1% was insignificant or not to justify calling it a "complete" rewrite, but surely you can also understand this might not be an instance of bad faith, but rather an instance of merely having a different threshold for "complete" than you? Second, let's just assume he had bad faith and lied about it being a complete rewrite; I don't know, but for all I know he might have. It's possible he's been trolled a lot by other people recently (sounds like he has, though I haven't checked the history) and he thought lying would get people to stop. Or maybe he's an awful guy. I have no idea. In any case, unless they had a dependency with a viral license, have distributed something based on that dependency, and that dependency's license required them to provide source code with it... they simply don't have any obligation to provide you with any source code, in which case you still wouldn't get anywhere, right? Are there such grounds for you being entitled to the source code at all? If there are, it seems this should be mentioned explicitly in the beginning so he understands he has an actual obligation he's not already fulfilling? > 2. Do you mean me (Christian Bundy)? I asked a question because I was unhappy seeing the maintainer lie to one of my friends about the "complete rewrite". Lies bad, truth good. In (2) you're referring to (b) in my post, right? I actually didn't mean you (I meant everyone else on the internet who just piled onto your post afterward), because I didn't think that's something you had control over, but now I'm seeing you're the one who specifically went out of your say to submit the post on HN too... which is begging for people to pile on and cancel this guy because you (or I guess your friend) didn't get the source code you wanted. All because you (who apparently aren't even the person who was wronged?) are upset because you think he lied to one of your friends, and you think contributors who might be ones to have a stake in this might also be on your side and might want you (whom they don't even know) to seek vigilante justice on their behalf? Isn't this how Twitter justice works...? Do we really need this on HN? Is this kind of public cancellation really making the world a better place?
esoterae 6y ago
I am surprisingly incensed by my interpretation of your questions as being cavalier and disingenuous. As far as I can tell, you mean to dismiss by misdirection or fallacy. I suggest you've got the wrong end of the stick, and leave it at that. Up until 30 minutes ago, I was an octotree customer. Do I have standing? Do I need someone's permission to care about this? I'm not a concerned contributor; I'm a former supporter now concerned with what my subscription has enabled. I cannot address the money that is already under the bridge, but I can certainly stop dropping it in the river. I'm not upset about the question re: AGPL inclusion, I'm upset about the very, very poor series of answers and actions by the maintainer, whatever form they've individually taken. Should the whole mess of a posteri license reassignment get addressed cogently and comprehensively, I'll reconsider. Even a mea culpa would be sufficient, should it be followed by Doing The Right Thing[s].
- cortesoft 6y ago
  > Up until 30 minutes ago, I was an octotree customer. Do I have standing? No, you don’t. Only people who wrote any of the code would have standing.
- dataflow 6y ago
  > I am surprisingly incensed by my interpretation of your questions as being cavalier and disingenuous. As far as I can tell, you mean to dismiss by misdirection or fallacy. No, and I'd reply to your points, but I'm quite offended by your comment (and you're breaking the site rules).
  - jlgaddis 6y ago
    Seriously? You're "offended" by that!? Geez.
michaelmrose 6y ago
> Based on package.json only one author mentioned, Buu Nguyen <buunguyen@gmail.com> If I distributed the linux kernel with a text document stating I was the sole author it wouldn't make it so. The author wont suffer legal consequences unless someone with a stake in the matter proves in a court of law where all the appropriate protections apply but the court of public opinion is both more fond of drama and less kind. To answer (b) first people are speculating on this topic for the same reason people follow news stories that have zero chance of ever effecting their lives because it has piqued their interest. Describing this as "canceling" reveals more about your perspective than it does about the issue. To answer the more substantial (a) the facts on the ground seem to suggest that the author is sputtering, floundering, and lying. He lied about it being a rewrite. He lied about it being "ok" even if it wasn't a rewrite (which is it?) After saying he had rewritten it all he then said it was ok because he had either written or paid for "most" of the original code to be rewritten when it ought to be obvious that "most" wouldn't be strictly correct in any case. The obvious conclusion is that he broke or didn't understand the law in the first place and never chose to hire someone who did or took their advice. Why defend this?

jhardy54 6y ago

The context is that someone asked for source and the maintainer lied: https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1038#issuecomment-717571135 https://github.com/ovity/octotree/issues/1038#issuecomment-7... 1. That wasn't what was being challenged. The challenge was whether there was, in fact, a "complete rewrite", since the output files matched the AGPL source 1:1. 2. Do you mean me (Christian Bundy)? I asked a question because I was unhappy seeing the maintainer lie to one of my friends about the "complete rewrite". Lies bad, truth good. The licensing is the reason for the lie, not the reason for the investigation.

mehrdadn 6y ago
First, it's far from clear to me he's lied (which is not equivalent to saying he didn't). So far as I see, it may well have been that (a) he honestly forgot there were some old lines still remaining that they didn't rewrite, (b) or he did know that, but he felt any vestiges of old code were insignificant and not enough to justify changing the sentence. If he rewrote like ~99% of the code, you might disagree about whether the remaining <1% was insignificant or not to justify calling it a "complete" rewrite, but surely you can also understand this might not be an instance of bad faith, but rather an instance of merely having a different threshold for "complete" than you? Second, let's just assume he had bad faith and lied about it being a complete rewrite; I don't know, but for all I know he might have. It's possible he's been trolled a lot by other people recently (sounds like he has, though I haven't checked the history) and he thought lying would get people to stop. Or maybe he's an awful guy. I have no idea. In any case, unless they had a dependency with a viral license, have distributed something based on that dependency, and that dependency's license required them to provide source code with it... they simply don't have any obligation to provide you with any source code, in which case you still wouldn't get anywhere, right? Are there such grounds for you being entitled to the source code at all? If there are, it seems this should be mentioned explicitly in the beginning so he understands he has an actual obligation he's not already fulfilling? > 2. Do you mean me (Christian Bundy)? I asked a question because I was unhappy seeing the maintainer lie to one of my friends about the "complete rewrite". Lies bad, truth good. In (2) you're referring to (b) in my post, right? I actually didn't mean you (I meant everyone else on the internet who just piled onto your post afterward), because I didn't think that's something you had control over, but now I'm seeing you're the one who specifically went out of your say to submit the post on HN too... which is begging for people to pile on and cancel this guy because you (or I guess your friend) didn't get the source code you wanted. All because you (who apparently aren't even the person who was wronged?) are upset because you think he lied to one of your friends, and you think contributors who might be ones to have a stake in this might also be on your side and might want you (whom they don't even know) to seek vigilante justice on their behalf? Isn't this how Twitter justice works...? Do we really need this on HN? Is this kind of public cancellation really making the world a better place?

esoterae 6y ago

I am surprisingly incensed by my interpretation of your questions as being cavalier and disingenuous. As far as I can tell, you mean to dismiss by misdirection or fallacy. I suggest you've got the wrong end of the stick, and leave it at that. Up until 30 minutes ago, I was an octotree customer. Do I have standing? Do I need someone's permission to care about this? I'm not a concerned contributor; I'm a former supporter now concerned with what my subscription has enabled. I cannot address the money that is already under the bridge, but I can certainly stop dropping it in the river. I'm not upset about the question re: AGPL inclusion, I'm upset about the very, very poor series of answers and actions by the maintainer, whatever form they've individually taken. Should the whole mess of a posteri license reassignment get addressed cogently and comprehensively, I'll reconsider. Even a mea culpa would be sufficient, should it be followed by Doing The Right Thing[s].

cortesoft 6y ago
> Up until 30 minutes ago, I was an octotree customer. Do I have standing? No, you don’t. Only people who wrote any of the code would have standing.
dataflow 6y ago
> I am surprisingly incensed by my interpretation of your questions as being cavalier and disingenuous. As far as I can tell, you mean to dismiss by misdirection or fallacy. No, and I'd reply to your points, but I'm quite offended by your comment (and you're breaking the site rules).
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  Seriously? You're "offended" by that!? Geez.

michaelmrose 6y ago

> Based on package.json only one author mentioned, Buu Nguyen <buunguyen@gmail.com> If I distributed the linux kernel with a text document stating I was the sole author it wouldn't make it so. The author wont suffer legal consequences unless someone with a stake in the matter proves in a court of law where all the appropriate protections apply but the court of public opinion is both more fond of drama and less kind. To answer (b) first people are speculating on this topic for the same reason people follow news stories that have zero chance of ever effecting their lives because it has piqued their interest. Describing this as "canceling" reveals more about your perspective than it does about the issue. To answer the more substantial (a) the facts on the ground seem to suggest that the author is sputtering, floundering, and lying. He lied about it being a rewrite. He lied about it being "ok" even if it wasn't a rewrite (which is it?) After saying he had rewritten it all he then said it was ok because he had either written or paid for "most" of the original code to be rewritten when it ought to be obvious that "most" wouldn't be strictly correct in any case. The obvious conclusion is that he broke or didn't understand the law in the first place and never chose to hire someone who did or took their advice. Why defend this?