3 ms·

IMO, @threedaymonk has handled this maturely and well. https://github.com/threedaymonk/text/issues/21#issuecomment-67771515 https://github.com/threedaymonk/tex

IMO, @threedaymonk has handled this maturely and well. https://github.com/threedaymonk/text/issues/21#issuecomment-67771515 https://github.com/threedaymonk/text/issues/21#issuecomment-... > "I'm not going to port Metaphone 3 to Ruby, nor am I going to accept or merge any such ports at this time. > Whilst the licensing of the Java code in question clearly and unambiguously permits such a port, @lphilips54's stated intentions for reuse of the code are unclear and contradictory. I can't see that any benefit would come from integrating something that is surrounded by such confusion."

dragontamer 12y ago
What is legal to do, and what is moral to do doesn't always match up. I'm sure they're within their legal right to copy the code if they wanted to. But that wouldn't be the moral thing to do.
- TillE 12y ago
  I don't think there's a clear moral component here, unless someone can demonstrate that the author would suffer actual damage from such a port. It would certainly be a little rude, though.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    What's rude is granting a license and then trying to take it back after people have relied on it.
  - Thimothy 12y ago
    Well, he makes a living from that code. It looks like he made a mistake with the license but I don't think is morally right to sabotage his source of income just for that mistake.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > I'm sure they're within their legal right to copy the code if they wanted to. I'm not sure they're within their legal right to do so given metaphone 3 is patented, and the BSD license does not include patent grants, so the patent grant has to be obtained separately from the license.
  - bchociej 12y ago
    Is there a patent covering it? I've only seen rejected applications so far.
  - cthalupa 12y ago
    You've repeated this all over this thread and have yet to provide a link to a granted patent. Indeed, Alice v CLS makes it much more difficult for algorithms to be patented in the US (though hardly impossible), and the only references to a metaphone patent in the USPTO that I or others in here have been able to find have been rejected patent attempts. If you are going to repeat this everywhere like it is the truth, please provide clarification, because current evidence points to this being incorrect, and I'm sure everyone here would like to be corrected if our current findings are wrong
    - chrismcb 12y ago
      http://www.google.com/patents/US726918 http://www.google.com/patents/US726918 ? Hmmm maybe not, the patent expired last century

dragontamer 12y ago

What is legal to do, and what is moral to do doesn't always match up. I'm sure they're within their legal right to copy the code if they wanted to. But that wouldn't be the moral thing to do.

TillE 12y ago
I don't think there's a clear moral component here, unless someone can demonstrate that the author would suffer actual damage from such a port. It would certainly be a little rude, though.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  What's rude is granting a license and then trying to take it back after people have relied on it.
- Thimothy 12y ago
  Well, he makes a living from that code. It looks like he made a mistake with the license but I don't think is morally right to sabotage his source of income just for that mistake.
masklinn 12y ago
> I'm sure they're within their legal right to copy the code if they wanted to. I'm not sure they're within their legal right to do so given metaphone 3 is patented, and the BSD license does not include patent grants, so the patent grant has to be obtained separately from the license.
- bchociej 12y ago
  Is there a patent covering it? I've only seen rejected applications so far.
- cthalupa 12y ago
  You've repeated this all over this thread and have yet to provide a link to a granted patent. Indeed, Alice v CLS makes it much more difficult for algorithms to be patented in the US (though hardly impossible), and the only references to a metaphone patent in the USPTO that I or others in here have been able to find have been rejected patent attempts. If you are going to repeat this everywhere like it is the truth, please provide clarification, because current evidence points to this being incorrect, and I'm sure everyone here would like to be corrected if our current findings are wrong
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    http://www.google.com/patents/US726918 http://www.google.com/patents/US726918 ? Hmmm maybe not, the patent expired last century