4 ms·

The language argument is a red herring that appeals to an outdated, pre-communications revolution worldview and tries to ignore the central issue here. Languag

by carbon8 18y ago

The language argument is a red herring that appeals to an outdated, pre-communications revolution worldview and tries to ignore the central issue here. Language support has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this situation. If someone produces something based on a concept already in the wild, it's OK no matter what the language situation is. But if someone outright clones a site's design, it's a dirty move no matter what the language situation is. In its worst forms it's fraudulent and deceptive, in its most innocent form it's confusing to users.

jhancock 18y ago
I do not think this new site is fraudulent or confusing to its users. I'm sure the vast majority of Chinese users will know this new site is a clone of StackOverflow. Here's your litmus test: If both sites exist and users in China overwhelmingly chose the new China based one, doesn't it prove that this new site is providing something that the original did not or could not provide?
- carbon8 18y ago
  So if I clone your ShellShadow software, design everything to look as identical as possible and the market overwhelmingly chooses my clone, that's OK with you? Somehow I doubt it.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    Its not a matter of "that's ok with me". There are many variables to success. If someone else's "Collaborative Shell Client" takes off and mine doesn't, or takes off in a market I haven't or couldn't service well, and I was on the internet first, I need to review many other variables besides just product design.
    - carbon8 18y ago
      If someone else's "Collaborative Shell Client" takes off and mine doesn't... There's a massive difference between a competitor and a clone.
      - jhancock 18y ago
        ahhh...but you see the "software" as 100% of the product. There is so much more to it..especially in the case of community content sites. In this case, they didn't copy the software. They rewrote it from the ground up with different tools. They did copy almost 100% the look and feel. But that is not 100% of the "product"...far from it.
        carbon8 18y ago
        You clearly have missed everything since it's exactly the opposite. The internal software architecture is not the issue here, the cloned result presented to users/customers is.
        jhancock 18y ago
        and StackOverflow was unabashedly a derivative of Digg or Reddit. The creators have said so themselves. How closely to a pre-existing design or market space does a product need to be before it offends you? Do you have a methodology to measure this? How much time have you spent trying to woo venture capital? In my experience, one of the first questions I get hit with is "is there anyone else doing something similar?" If the answer is no, this is a red flag. A typical and expected elevator pitch is "its like X but for Y". Hybridization is the game here. It is common and quite acceptable to say "its like X but for China". The creator of this new product did change something...something critical... "its like StackOverflow but for China".
        carbon8 18y ago
        and StackOverflow was unabashedly a derivative of Digg or Reddit. "Derivative", not clone.
        jhancock 18y ago
        its all "derivative". You simply have a definition of "clone" which I do not share.
catz 18y ago
What exactly is the problem? The original stack overflow is CC-SA. This website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ says what it is meant by that: You are free: - to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work - to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: - Attribution ... - Share Alike ... The Chinese cite shows that it is CC-SA (right bottom corner). Furthermore it freely acknowledges that it is based on stackoverflow. You can look at the blog [here](http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnprog.com%2Ffaq%2F&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&history_state0= http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&...) Here is an [answer](http://209.85.229.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.cnprog.com/questions/59/%25E8%25AF%25B7%25E9%2597%25AEcnprog%25E8%25B7%259Fstackoverflow%25E7%259A%2584%25E5%2585%25B3%25E7%25B3%25BB%25E6%2598%25AF%25E4%25BB%2580%25E4%25B9%2588%25EF%25BC%259F&prev=_t&usg=ALkJrhiID2kPk36VKdOm4ALixm36fN74iA http://209.85.229.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=...) to what the relationship is between cnprog.com and stackoverflow: The creation of CNProg are stackoverflow inspiration comes from (see "Why CNProg.COM create?") SO once made to us, but because of Jeff and his team are currently no plans for localization, so we have created to serve the Chinese programmers CNProg. And our platform is already open source code, welcome like-minded friends to join us, millions of programmers to provide a domestic major technical Q & A community. I can not see that anything morally wrong was done by creating this site - and it serves a useful purpose (by helping those people who speak Chinese). > The language argument is a red herring that appeals to an outdated, pre-communications revolution worldview This is the typical view of an English centric person. There are billions of people for who English is not a first language and whose second language English is not up to the standard that they can communicate with. But who cares? I am sure that there are enough Chinese -speaking people to make this site a success.
- carbon8 18y ago
  What exactly is the problem? The original stack overflow is CC-SA. I'm not addressing the license aspect of this particular case, I'm addressing the attempt to use language support as a justification for this practice. Furthermore it freely acknowledges that it is based on stackoverflow... The creation of CNProg are stackoverflow inspiration There is a huge difference between inspiration and outright cloning, and many additional consequences that result from the latter. This is the typical view of an English centric person Just the opposite. This is the view of someone currently in France, whose first company in my 20s was based in both Hong Kong and the US, makes web apps with labels in multiple languages and therefore recognizes the utter ignorance of claiming that language is sufficient justification for outright cloning a product or service.

by carbon8 18y ago

jhancock 18y ago

I do not think this new site is fraudulent or confusing to its users. I'm sure the vast majority of Chinese users will know this new site is a clone of StackOverflow. Here's your litmus test: If both sites exist and users in China overwhelmingly chose the new China based one, doesn't it prove that this new site is providing something that the original did not or could not provide?

carbon8 18y ago
So if I clone your ShellShadow software, design everything to look as identical as possible and the market overwhelmingly chooses my clone, that's OK with you? Somehow I doubt it.
- jhancock 18y ago
  Its not a matter of "that's ok with me". There are many variables to success. If someone else's "Collaborative Shell Client" takes off and mine doesn't, or takes off in a market I haven't or couldn't service well, and I was on the internet first, I need to review many other variables besides just product design.
  - carbon8 18y ago
    If someone else's "Collaborative Shell Client" takes off and mine doesn't... There's a massive difference between a competitor and a clone.
    - jhancock 18y ago
      ahhh...but you see the "software" as 100% of the product. There is so much more to it..especially in the case of community content sites. In this case, they didn't copy the software. They rewrote it from the ground up with different tools. They did copy almost 100% the look and feel. But that is not 100% of the "product"...far from it.
      - carbon8 18y ago
        You clearly have missed everything since it's exactly the opposite. The internal software architecture is not the issue here, the cloned result presented to users/customers is.
        jhancock 18y ago
        and StackOverflow was unabashedly a derivative of Digg or Reddit. The creators have said so themselves. How closely to a pre-existing design or market space does a product need to be before it offends you? Do you have a methodology to measure this? How much time have you spent trying to woo venture capital? In my experience, one of the first questions I get hit with is "is there anyone else doing something similar?" If the answer is no, this is a red flag. A typical and expected elevator pitch is "its like X but for Y". Hybridization is the game here. It is common and quite acceptable to say "its like X but for China". The creator of this new product did change something...something critical... "its like StackOverflow but for China".
        carbon8 18y ago
        and StackOverflow was unabashedly a derivative of Digg or Reddit. "Derivative", not clone.
        jhancock 18y ago
        its all "derivative". You simply have a definition of "clone" which I do not share.

catz 18y ago

What exactly is the problem? The original stack overflow is CC-SA. This website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ says what it is meant by that: You are free: - to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work - to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: - Attribution ... - Share Alike ... The Chinese cite shows that it is CC-SA (right bottom corner). Furthermore it freely acknowledges that it is based on stackoverflow. You can look at the blog [here](http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnprog.com%2Ffaq%2F&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&history_state0= http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&...) Here is an [answer](http://209.85.229.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.cnprog.com/questions/59/%25E8%25AF%25B7%25E9%2597%25AEcnprog%25E8%25B7%259Fstackoverflow%25E7%259A%2584%25E5%2585%25B3%25E7%25B3%25BB%25E6%2598%25AF%25E4%25BB%2580%25E4%25B9%2588%25EF%25BC%259F&prev=_t&usg=ALkJrhiID2kPk36VKdOm4ALixm36fN74iA http://209.85.229.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=...) to what the relationship is between cnprog.com and stackoverflow: The creation of CNProg are stackoverflow inspiration comes from (see "Why CNProg.COM create?") SO once made to us, but because of Jeff and his team are currently no plans for localization, so we have created to serve the Chinese programmers CNProg. And our platform is already open source code, welcome like-minded friends to join us, millions of programmers to provide a domestic major technical Q & A community. I can not see that anything morally wrong was done by creating this site - and it serves a useful purpose (by helping those people who speak Chinese). > The language argument is a red herring that appeals to an outdated, pre-communications revolution worldview This is the typical view of an English centric person. There are billions of people for who English is not a first language and whose second language English is not up to the standard that they can communicate with. But who cares? I am sure that there are enough Chinese -speaking people to make this site a success.

carbon8 18y ago
What exactly is the problem? The original stack overflow is CC-SA. I'm not addressing the license aspect of this particular case, I'm addressing the attempt to use language support as a justification for this practice. Furthermore it freely acknowledges that it is based on stackoverflow... The creation of CNProg are stackoverflow inspiration There is a huge difference between inspiration and outright cloning, and many additional consequences that result from the latter. This is the typical view of an English centric person Just the opposite. This is the view of someone currently in France, whose first company in my 20s was based in both Hong Kong and the US, makes web apps with labels in multiple languages and therefore recognizes the utter ignorance of claiming that language is sufficient justification for outright cloning a product or service.