3 ms·

> My only frustration is that they're pretending that it isn't AGPL code and refusing to respect the contributors whose code they're using. But what I don't ge

> My only frustration is that they're pretending that it isn't AGPL code and refusing to respect the contributors whose code they're using. But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? How do you know they don't have some legal agreement with those people? How do you even know they didn't contact those contributors? How do you know the other contributors' contributions weren't trivial enough (for all I know they could've even just been formatting/indentation) and not warranting any action? How do you know the contributors aren't fine with it? And how does everyone somehow know other contributors want them to seek some sort of justice on their behalf?

gspr 6y ago
Suppose what you're saying were true. Why would then this buunguyen respond to the GH issue in this way? Why go on the offensive, calling people trolls? Why lie about having rewritten the code? If what you say is true, he could simply say so. This is not the behavior of an innocent person respecting the software's license. It's the behavior of a very guilty person. Or a clown. Or both.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I don't know, I don't think either is impossible, but let's say they are guilty. I repeat my question: how does anyone here know the contributors aren't fine with this regardless (maybe they don't feel their contributions were minor enough not to justify casting a spotlight on them, raising a public feud over a trivial issue, and cancelling this guy)? How does everyone here somehow know the contributors want vigilante justice? It's as if we're trying to play out https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ except we're replacing "wrong" with "violating someone else's copyright"...
  - totony 6y ago
    A deleted comment in the github issue was a contributor stating that they didn't know but didn't care. It's fair for people to not like this because the contributors were not made aware of this. Thus the only people who were wronged did not even know of it.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > maybe they don't feel their contributions were minor enough not to justify casting a spotlight on them, raising a public feud over a trivial issue That sounds like bullying. That wouldn't be okay either. Even if they would actually be fine with it, a ticket saying "ask them!" is a valid issue.
jhardy54 6y ago
> But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie. The minified JavaScript has tons of 1:1 copies of the AGPL code, clear as day (example: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719980414 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...), and the maintainer is deleting any comment that mentions the clear evidence.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  >> But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? > Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie. First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. Second, you literally have contributors themselves starting to come to defend him against you: > I’m @{name} in your CC list and I was hired to work on Octotree. I’m no longer involved, but I was there when we rewrote Octotree. Just so you know. Is it possible some people may have been wronged here? Sure. Is it possible they haven't? Yes. We don't know, but even before you even knew some were paid and all that, you'd already leveled an accusation against them of bad faith and gotten people all across the world piling on. Given you've gotten at least part of this wrong so far, one would think maybe a less confidence in your accusation might've in fact been warranted, especially given you're just a bystander?
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    > First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. This is total nonsense. The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent, but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite.

gspr 6y ago

Suppose what you're saying were true. Why would then this buunguyen respond to the GH issue in this way? Why go on the offensive, calling people trolls? Why lie about having rewritten the code? If what you say is true, he could simply say so. This is not the behavior of an innocent person respecting the software's license. It's the behavior of a very guilty person. Or a clown. Or both.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I don't know, I don't think either is impossible, but let's say they are guilty. I repeat my question: how does anyone here know the contributors aren't fine with this regardless (maybe they don't feel their contributions were minor enough not to justify casting a spotlight on them, raising a public feud over a trivial issue, and cancelling this guy)? How does everyone here somehow know the contributors want vigilante justice? It's as if we're trying to play out https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ except we're replacing "wrong" with "violating someone else's copyright"...
- totony 6y ago
  A deleted comment in the github issue was a contributor stating that they didn't know but didn't care. It's fair for people to not like this because the contributors were not made aware of this. Thus the only people who were wronged did not even know of it.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > maybe they don't feel their contributions were minor enough not to justify casting a spotlight on them, raising a public feud over a trivial issue That sounds like bullying. That wouldn't be okay either. Even if they would actually be fine with it, a ticket saying "ask them!" is a valid issue.

jhardy54 6y ago

> But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie. The minified JavaScript has tons of 1:1 copies of the AGPL code, clear as day (example: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719980414 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...), and the maintainer is deleting any comment that mentions the clear evidence.

mehrdadn 6y ago
>> But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? > Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie. First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. Second, you literally have contributors themselves starting to come to defend him against you: > I’m @{name} in your CC list and I was hired to work on Octotree. I’m no longer involved, but I was there when we rewrote Octotree. Just so you know. Is it possible some people may have been wronged here? Sure. Is it possible they haven't? Yes. We don't know, but even before you even knew some were paid and all that, you'd already leveled an accusation against them of bad faith and gotten people all across the world piling on. Given you've gotten at least part of this wrong so far, one would think maybe a less confidence in your accusation might've in fact been warranted, especially given you're just a bystander?
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. This is total nonsense. The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent, but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite.