6 ms·

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

by 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.

jhancock 18y ago
I still think your focusing too much on "language" rather than "community". Jeff Atwood and co. could never "copy" the StackOverflow community into China. And that's what they would have to do..."copy it to China". I highly doubt they could have done it and maybe this new set of programmers can. What harm is there in providing a community for Chinese programmers to thrive? Look at all Google's efforts...and they aren't the dominant search engine in China. There is too much belief that if a Western company creates a product that they have implicit rights to world domination with it. I think a fragmented world is interesting and more competitive. If it takes copying to bootstrap that fragmentation, so be it.
- carbon8 18y ago
  And that's what they would have to do..."copy it to China" Which is basically all the clone is at this point. I still think your focusing too much on "language" rather than "community". I'm focused on language because that's the justification being given for cloning web apps. No matter what language you want to deal with, claiming that you can't build a community without entirely cloning another team's web app is asinine.
  - sho 18y ago
    No-one claimed that. And as pointed out elsewhere, an update to the sites' CSS is imminent; the copying of SO's CSS seems to have been a simple matter of expediency. I'm not sure what your point is, actually. Cloning successful products is hardly new or even frowned upon. Indeed, the computer you are using is most likely a descendant of a cloned IBM PC. Why argue?
    - chiffonade 18y ago
      Why are you wasting your energy? The person you are arguing simply does not like China/Chinese people and will go to any length to trash it/them. Anyone with half a brain can tell this is a perfectly legitimate use of an open/shared source platform, with attribution, reciprocal openness, and local modifications. StackOverflow simply would not have ever made a Chinese version, so some Chinese people took it upon themselves to do it themselves.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    "Which is basically all the clone is at this point." At this point its more than a clone. He published the source with a permissible license (Apache) on a well adopted platform (django). StackOverflow gave something to the world with its licensing. The creator of this new product followed the rules and even added the bonus of immediately giving something back to the world.
    - carbon8 18y ago
      As I stated elsewhere, the internal software architecture (or licensing) is not the issue here, the cloned result presented to users/customers is. Your argument was that someone can't take a web app and "copy it to China," yet this is exactly what it is at this point from the perspective of someone using the application. So, according to you now, apparently it can be done as long as the person who "cop[ies] it to China" happens to be on Chinese soil at the time and, unbeknownst to a regular user, builds it using a different web framework and open sources it. No, in fact your origin implication was the right one: the hard part is building a community and delivering a service customized for market beyond simply changing the language, something that so far has not been done here with this application yet.

by carbon8 18y ago

jhancock 18y ago

I still think your focusing too much on "language" rather than "community". Jeff Atwood and co. could never "copy" the StackOverflow community into China. And that's what they would have to do..."copy it to China". I highly doubt they could have done it and maybe this new set of programmers can. What harm is there in providing a community for Chinese programmers to thrive? Look at all Google's efforts...and they aren't the dominant search engine in China. There is too much belief that if a Western company creates a product that they have implicit rights to world domination with it. I think a fragmented world is interesting and more competitive. If it takes copying to bootstrap that fragmentation, so be it.

carbon8 18y ago
And that's what they would have to do..."copy it to China" Which is basically all the clone is at this point. I still think your focusing too much on "language" rather than "community". I'm focused on language because that's the justification being given for cloning web apps. No matter what language you want to deal with, claiming that you can't build a community without entirely cloning another team's web app is asinine.
- sho 18y ago
  No-one claimed that. And as pointed out elsewhere, an update to the sites' CSS is imminent; the copying of SO's CSS seems to have been a simple matter of expediency. I'm not sure what your point is, actually. Cloning successful products is hardly new or even frowned upon. Indeed, the computer you are using is most likely a descendant of a cloned IBM PC. Why argue?
  - chiffonade 18y ago
    Why are you wasting your energy? The person you are arguing simply does not like China/Chinese people and will go to any length to trash it/them. Anyone with half a brain can tell this is a perfectly legitimate use of an open/shared source platform, with attribution, reciprocal openness, and local modifications. StackOverflow simply would not have ever made a Chinese version, so some Chinese people took it upon themselves to do it themselves.
- jhancock 18y ago
  "Which is basically all the clone is at this point." At this point its more than a clone. He published the source with a permissible license (Apache) on a well adopted platform (django). StackOverflow gave something to the world with its licensing. The creator of this new product followed the rules and even added the bonus of immediately giving something back to the world.
  - carbon8 18y ago
    As I stated elsewhere, the internal software architecture (or licensing) is not the issue here, the cloned result presented to users/customers is. Your argument was that someone can't take a web app and "copy it to China," yet this is exactly what it is at this point from the perspective of someone using the application. So, according to you now, apparently it can be done as long as the person who "cop[ies] it to China" happens to be on Chinese soil at the time and, unbeknownst to a regular user, builds it using a different web framework and open sources it. No, in fact your origin implication was the right one: the hard part is building a community and delivering a service customized for market beyond simply changing the language, something that so far has not been done here with this application yet.