6 ms·
I'm losing my mind with people who keep replying with "That's open source baby! Don't make it open source if you don't like!" The problem with this behavior is
by ctvo 5y ago
I'm losing my mind with people who keep replying with "That's open source baby! Don't make it open source if you don't like!"
The problem with this behavior is as follows:
- The MIT license requires attribution of the original work. The author contacted the person who forked this privately [1]. It wasn't done until the Twitter thread.
- Questionably the fork was renamed and didn't include git history to make the first point even worse. Git history was only rebased in after the Twitter thread [2].
1 - https://twitter.com/DerianAndre/status/1441851684095811585 https://twitter.com/DerianAndre/status/1441851684095811585
2 - https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/commits/main?after=566a49b0bec349059762701927759993c2b0fb38+104&branch=main https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/commits/main?after=566a49b0...
- woodruffw 5y agoI was on the forker’s side of things until those last two points: I don’t think anybody should have to justify creating a fork, but the (seemingly intentional) stripping of the revision history and absence of attribution indicates a bad actor to me.
- lmilcin 5y agoIt does not indicate a bad actor. It is bad actor. Attribution is not a "wish" of the original creator that you should feel morally obliged to follow. It is a legal prerequisite of you being allowed to make a fork of it for free, under the licence given by the author.
- danw1979 5y agoIt’d be helpful for anyone downvoting this to point out the factual error that I can’t see.
- andrewflnr 5y agoIt's downvoted because it's a semantic nitpick based on a misunderstanding; it doesn't have enough meaning to contain a "factual error".
- torstenvl 5y agoIf it's just a misunderstanding, why try to punish him with the karma hit? That's just bullying, imho.
- woodruffw 5y agoI don’t think this particular comment deserves any downvotes (and I didn’t downvote either it or its parent), but remarking on a comment’s vote status on HN is a general faux pas.
- torstenvl 5y agoI am aware that complaining about your own downvotes is against the site rules. That is not what's going on here. Instead, danw1979 was asking for someone to explain why a reasonable comment was getting downvoted into oblivion. Neither danw1979 nor lmilcin did anything to deserve the random dogpile they received.
- woodruffw 5y agoAFAIK, there’s no actual site rule about this. It’s just a faux pas in general, whether it’s your downvotes or someone else’s. We’re on the same page about them not deserving it.
- grzm 5y agoFrom the guidelines: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cjaybo 5y agoThe guideline is about discussing upvotes/downvotes in any comment, not just your own: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
- woodruffw 5y agoI think you read too far into “indicate,” since I agree with everything you’ve said. I was only trying to emphasize that it’s my observation.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- swiley 5y agoMany legal things are immoral.
- woodruffw 5y agoWhat is this a response to? I don’t believe I made a legal claim in my comment.
- dochtman 5y agoIIUC lack of attribution in this case is enough to invoke GitHub's DMCA process against the violating repo.
- jagged-chisel 5y agoAny violation of the license. Lack of attribution is a violation of the license.
- tylermenezes 5y agoDon't forget when this was first brought up in Babel he was describing it as having an API "inspired" by colorette instead of what it was (a fork).
- dwaltrip 5y agoSo he was straight up lying?
- YetAnotherNick 5y ago> Git history was only rebased in after the Twitter thread [2]. Any source to this? Your referenced link does not support your hypothesis.
- lelandfe 5y agoYou can see the original commit history in forks of nanocolor that occurred before Andrey Sitnik rebased: * https://github.com/antonk52/nanocolors/commits/main https://github.com/antonk52/nanocolors/commits/main * https://github.com/corysimmons/nanocolors/commits/main?after=2f91133c56727290297872d093bdcadc5b69ab1c+69&branch=main https://github.com/corysimmons/nanocolors/commits/main?after... You can, indeed, see that they lack all of the original repo's commits.
- ctvo 5y agoIn addition to what others have pointed out: https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1441886210998239238 https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1441886210998239238 The commits in nanocolor's git history also don't include Jorge's verified signature, which would come with the fork.
- rafaelturk 5y agoWe'll but's that is what in the LICENSE, MIT, so yes it just this..