6 ms·
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 eve
by 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.
- franciscop 5y agoWell 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?
- franciscop 5y agoI'd like to welcome you to the world of Nightcore: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nightcore https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nightcore But in more seriousness, a song is normally quite distinguishable from another song than a tetris implementation from another tetris implementation. Conceptually, having a normal tetris vs having a tetris give you the worst solution (hatris) is the same jump as having a normal tetris vs having a tetris give you the best solution (lovetris). IMHO it's not the code itself what makes a "new thing new", it's the concept behind it.
- Grustaf 5y agoI completely disagree. I made a hatetris myself (called Lövetris) once, spent a good 20 hours on it. If someone took it, flipped a sign (or even re-skinned it) and published it as “by” them I’d be furious. Yes, the product would be different, but 99.9% (literally) of the work would still be mine. The hard part is building the app, not changing a parameter. I wouldn’t even call that a “remix”.
- thinkingemote 5y agoDid you give an open source license to your project? I think some licenses have better attribution requirements than others.
- Grustaf 5y agoI didn’t publish it at all, I’m just thinking hypothetically here!
- thinkingemote 5y agoGood idea! If more thought hypothetically about the consequences of various licenses I think it would be a good thing. In retrospect some of my projects might have more liberal WTFPL on them where I really don't care if someone else said they did it, but others I would want more recognition and more copy left for their changes. (I think some of my bigger projects side with the copy left and the smaller with the liberal.)
- thinkingemote 5y agoThe MIT license states the rights, I thought?
- Grustaf 5y agoI’m not saying it’s illegal, I’m saying it’s bad form.
- bombcar 5y agoThe TeX license requires you to change the name of you change a single byte. > All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain; thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go by this name are obliged to conform to the standard. If any changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are not called TeX or METAFONT.
- GistNoesis 5y agoThanks for the remark. There already was a link on the github readme to give credit to the original hatetris (MIT licensed). In addition I have added some link to qtnm hatetris on the play page, too.