4 ms·

They clearly indicate that it was inspired by XKCD and even print the URL to the original comic in the image. How is that plagiarizing?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- mynameisvlad 12y ago
  Except they did follow the "license". Specifically, >> as long as you tell people where they're from. Which they did. They even included the URL of where it was inspired from. And even so, it's not up to you to determine what follows the license and what doesn't. It's up to the author and his lawyer(s). Microsoft may have already asked for permission to do what they did, none of us know that. Furthermore, "not nice" would have been not linking at all. What was done is not "not nice". It could've been better, sure, but it's perfectly okay as is.
  - terrajobst 12y ago
    Not linking the original location is a fair point and I've fixed that. --Immo
  - nly 12y ago
    License is likely irrelevant, this would count as parody. Also, why so serious? :)
    - mynameisvlad 12y ago
      The person I replied to basically just played the "OMG Plagiarism" card without any real proof, then tried to cite the license to back themselves up.
- bjz_ 12y ago
  Art is about stealing and remixing, whilst noting where you got things from. I'm sure Randall understands this, and would not object.
JohnTHaller 12y ago
It's not. And they did it because they altered it slightly to specifically apply to .NET. The URL on the image is: http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/
- bjz_ 12y ago
  > it was inspired by XKCD
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    It's not plagiarizing. It's clearly inspired by XKCD. It says so.
    - bjz_ 12y ago
      I was quoting smatthews' post that you responded to. The intention was to show that he agrees with you.
      - JohnTHaller 12y ago
        Right, I'm well aware that he agrees with me. His posted ended with 'How is that plagiarizing?', a statement that he already knew the answer to (the answer being no). I was continuing the thought. And agreeing with him.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mynameisvlad 12y ago
Except they did follow the "license". Specifically, >> as long as you tell people where they're from. Which they did. They even included the URL of where it was inspired from. And even so, it's not up to you to determine what follows the license and what doesn't. It's up to the author and his lawyer(s). Microsoft may have already asked for permission to do what they did, none of us know that. Furthermore, "not nice" would have been not linking at all. What was done is not "not nice". It could've been better, sure, but it's perfectly okay as is.
- terrajobst 12y ago
  Not linking the original location is a fair point and I've fixed that. --Immo
- nly 12y ago
  License is likely irrelevant, this would count as parody. Also, why so serious? :)
  - mynameisvlad 12y ago
    The person I replied to basically just played the "OMG Plagiarism" card without any real proof, then tried to cite the license to back themselves up.
bjz_ 12y ago
Art is about stealing and remixing, whilst noting where you got things from. I'm sure Randall understands this, and would not object.

JohnTHaller 12y ago

It's not. And they did it because they altered it slightly to specifically apply to .NET. The URL on the image is: http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/

bjz_ 12y ago
> it was inspired by XKCD
- JohnTHaller 12y ago
  It's not plagiarizing. It's clearly inspired by XKCD. It says so.
  - bjz_ 12y ago
    I was quoting smatthews' post that you responded to. The intention was to show that he agrees with you.
    - JohnTHaller 12y ago
      Right, I'm well aware that he agrees with me. His posted ended with 'How is that plagiarizing?', a statement that he already knew the answer to (the answer being no). I was continuing the thought. And agreeing with him.