6 ms·

If all you’ve done is flip a sign, it’s a little disingenuous to say “by GistNoesis“.

indigochill 5y ago
This version didn't exist until GistNoesis flipped the sign, so no, it's not. This gets to a larger philosophy of open source: we should encourage people to fork when they want to iterate on someone else's work, however minor that iteration may be. This is open source working as intended.
- learnstats2 5y ago
  The Hatetris code doesn’t appear to have an open source license, or any license, so it isn’t open source. This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder. (On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)
  - Pfhreak 5y ago
    I mean, Hatetris probably wasn't using the Tetris trademarks properly, right? Aren't both just remix culture?
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Morally? I suppose if you squint hard enough. Legally though, just because one person's proprietary work relies upon another person's proprietary work, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes open source or public domain.
      - Pfhreak 5y ago
        I'm just surprised the community made the critique on this version but not the other one.
        simondotau 5y ago
        Honestly I’m not surprised. The prior work could be argued as being fair use of the Tetris copyright. It certainly isn’t stealing any market from any official licensed Tetris products or services. Morally, I can find it very easily defensible. This “Lovetris” work is a blatant copying and republishing of someone else’s proprietary work effort with no permission. Morally, I don’t see this as an egregious abuse, but I can see why this community would object to someone not acting in the spirit of open source licensing.
  - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
    https://github.com/qntm/hatetris/issues/50 https://github.com/qntm/hatetris/issues/50 License: MIT
    - learnstats2 5y ago
      I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - haneefmubarak 5y ago
        I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation. The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.
        learnstats2 5y ago
        I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued. The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point. This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk. [on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]
- Grustaf 5y ago
  If you take something that took hours to build and (as is claimed) spend 1 minute modifying it, you absolutely have no right to claim it’s “by” you. I think everyone except you agrees on that.
  - tobr 5y ago
    > I think everyone except you agrees on that As a member of “everyone”, would you please not put words in my mouth.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      ”I think”
      - LocalH 5y ago
        Well, you've been given an example that contradicts your "thinking", so either your "thinking" was unknowingly incorrect, or you now choose to believe something that is patently false.
    - zepolen 5y ago
      Everyone is so touchy.
  - franciscop 5y ago
    Well they also changed the name, so this new concept of Lovetris is by the new author, even if the code to make it possible is not. Lots of references to the old work as well, similar distribution (e.g. not paid), etc. If I was the author of Hatetris I'd be happy for this version!
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      > they also changed the name Is that a serious argument? If you write a techno song, and I take it, turn up the BPM and publish it as “by me”, would it help my case that I also changed the name of the song?

This version didn't exist until GistNoesis flipped the sign, so no, it's not. This gets to a larger philosophy of open source: we should encourage people to fork when they want to iterate on someone else's work, however minor that iteration may be. This is open source working as intended.

learnstats2 5y ago
The Hatetris code doesn’t appear to have an open source license, or any license, so it isn’t open source. This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder. (On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  I mean, Hatetris probably wasn't using the Tetris trademarks properly, right? Aren't both just remix culture?
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Morally? I suppose if you squint hard enough. Legally though, just because one person's proprietary work relies upon another person's proprietary work, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes open source or public domain.
    - Pfhreak 5y ago
      I'm just surprised the community made the critique on this version but not the other one.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        Honestly I’m not surprised. The prior work could be argued as being fair use of the Tetris copyright. It certainly isn’t stealing any market from any official licensed Tetris products or services. Morally, I can find it very easily defensible. This “Lovetris” work is a blatant copying and republishing of someone else’s proprietary work effort with no permission. Morally, I don’t see this as an egregious abuse, but I can see why this community would object to someone not acting in the spirit of open source licensing.
- Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
  https://github.com/qntm/hatetris/issues/50 https://github.com/qntm/hatetris/issues/50 License: MIT
  - learnstats2 5y ago
    I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - haneefmubarak 5y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation. The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.
      - learnstats2 5y ago
        I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued. The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point. This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk. [on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]
Grustaf 5y ago
If you take something that took hours to build and (as is claimed) spend 1 minute modifying it, you absolutely have no right to claim it’s “by” you. I think everyone except you agrees on that.
- tobr 5y ago
  > I think everyone except you agrees on that As a member of “everyone”, would you please not put words in my mouth.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    ”I think”
    - LocalH 5y ago
      Well, you've been given an example that contradicts your "thinking", so either your "thinking" was unknowingly incorrect, or you now choose to believe something that is patently false.
  - zepolen 5y ago
    Everyone is so touchy.
- franciscop 5y ago
  Well they also changed the name, so this new concept of Lovetris is by the new author, even if the code to make it possible is not. Lots of references to the old work as well, similar distribution (e.g. not paid), etc. If I was the author of Hatetris I'd be happy for this version!
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    > they also changed the name Is that a serious argument? If you write a techno song, and I take it, turn up the BPM and publish it as “by me”, would it help my case that I also changed the name of the song?