4 ms·
I don't think this is a fair framing. This isn't left-pad - it's a library that abstracts something people find annoying, and finding the right abstraction can
by fenomas 5y ago
I don't think this is a fair framing. This isn't left-pad - it's a library that abstracts something people find annoying, and finding the right abstraction can be difficult even if the final code doesn't seem complicated. Add in a few years of bug fixes and whatnot, and it seems pretty rude to dismiss the result as "easily replicable from scratch".
- cnst 5y agoI think it's worth pointing out that these pull requests replace a totally unrelated package with either one of these two packages that claim to be copying each other. The way it was framed was that someone forked a packaged and started replacing all users; not what happened. Also: I don't even use JS, so, I have no idea who these people or libraries are.
- fenomas 5y agoI was replying to GP's suggestion that the argument is over relatively trivial code, not to anything about the core dispute.
- tomxor 5y agoI think I made it clear enough that I was suggesting these packages are somewhere above the one-liners. While I agree finding the right abstraction is useful and takes time, I find it hard to apply that to a package that provides a function that wraps strings... I think it's fair to say that it's somewhat useful, but easy to replicate from scratch, and that's ok it deserves to exist - it does however considerably affect how different people perceive it's value. But perhaps for contrast we should compare to the other end of the spectrum... Intel uses Minix3 in intelME which is part of every modern intel CPU [0]. Minix3 has a 3 clause BSD license which requires reproducing the copyright notice for basic attribution [1]. Which they failed to reproduce. Now in Tanenbaum's public letter, he politely suggested it would have been courteous if they had merely informed him of what it was being used for [2]... no mention of lack of attribution, no hysteria, no invoking of the mob on twitter, he didn't make even 1/10th the fuss this NPM package developer made. Lets cut to the chase: The difference between these two people is that one cares about attribution way more than contributing to FOSS. They care about it to such a degree that makes me uncomfortable to touch their code, in-case of any perceived injustice against them or missed opportunity for self-promotion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Hardware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Hardwa... [1] https://github.com/minix3/minix/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/minix3/minix/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
- hitekker 5y agoThe difference is that someone pirated another person's software and tried to get away with it. Then that person's fan club wrote a bunch of nonsense to distract, deflect and cloud their malfeasance. Attribution may not be a concern for career criminals but FOSS tries to stay on the side of the law. Otherwise, projects risk being "tainted" by copy-pasted code that could lead to even larger legal repercussions. ReactOS had its development shut down in 2006 because of mere allegations; they had to prove all their code was written by themselves https://reactos.org/project-news/reset-reboot-restart-legal-issues-and-long-road-03/ https://reactos.org/project-news/reset-reboot-restart-legal-...
- tomxor 5y agowow... listen to yourself, this is FOSS, we aren't the MPAA. You are just banging the drum louder for the OP, nothing to do with what I said at all.