91–100 of 309 posts
I wish the legal arguments (the fact that the original project was under the MIT license - that's right, the original author has no rights to draw consequences from this rip-off) didn't blind everyone to the fact that "ai" behaved not ok. Not in the spirit of OpenSource. If he encountered problems with the library, why didn't he want to contact the author first and suggest changes to the original project? Why didn't…
What is even going on here? https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78 . They're arguing about who should have attribution for adding a single "!s &&" to improve performance? What happened with the world where open-source was about creating cool projects together , not about who has the most stars on GitHub? To be honest, this is the general feeling I get from the JavaScript community: Instead of working tog…
JS is a vast ecosystem with little barriers to entry, and
> Fixing bugs isn't fun; going through the bug list isn't fun; but rewriting everything from scratch is fun (because "this time it will be done right", ha ha) and so that's what happens, over and over again.
I don't think there's anything malicious going on, except a lot of people doing JS.
https://twitter.com/equinusocio/status/1441732243727192087?s... > You should think this "wow, the author of one of the most popular frontend tools of today just used my work as reference. It's an honor." By far my favorite and most ridiculous tweet I've seen in this thread.
I keep thinking about this event and it seems like a fractal of bizarre phenomena. The act of stripping git history and attribution while forking is itself malicious, but then aggressively creating pull requests across major projects to use the new version and rack up your download count (???), then picking petty fights with the creator of the original over attribution (????), and the fanbase (?????) of the forker do…
And there are people supporting their position.
I think because JS is such a large tent, there are folks not familiar with licenses and general norms in this space. I don't think it's something that being reasonable and pointing things out wouldn't fix.
As an aside I'm now extremely uncomfortable if I find any of ai's work as a transitive dependency for my company's own work because of their attitude towards adhering to licenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was on the forker’s side of things until those last two points: I don’t think anybody should have to justify creating a fork, but the (seemingly intentional) stripping of the revision history and absence of attribution indicates a bad actor to me.
It does not indicate a bad actor. It is bad actor. Attribution is not a "wish" of the original creator that you should feel morally obliged to follow. It is a legal prerequisite of you being allowed to make a fork of it for free, under the licence given by the author.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many, many, many such movements. Which somewhat defeats the point, really.
This is why I have 107 different point-releases of lowdash and jquery in my node_modules folder
reading through the threads it does appear both individuals are vying for some semblance of "fame", that the forker forked without git history and that the change was small enough to be made in a pr and merged. I think most of the contention here is that the forker ended up switching over babels (a build tool for js) codependency over to the new fork and without git history.
https://twitter.com/equinusocio/status/1441732243727192087?s... > You should think this "wow, the author of one of the most popular frontend tools of today just used my work as reference. It's an honor." By far my favorite and most ridiculous tweet I've seen in this thread.
That is by far one of the worst takes I've seen. Beyond the fact that he A) has no skin in the game, so why comment, he B) is assuming to know "how" someone should feel about anything.
It looks like nanocolors is a fork of colorette with a few (substantial?) changes, see https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes . However, the author of nanocolors, Andrey Sitnik, only added attribution info about colorette after Jorge Bucaran went public about the fork on Twitter. If the fork had attributed colorette from the start, would there be drama here?
Colorette author here. I put the benchmarks in a CI workflow so anyone can check. Click Benchmarks to see the results: https://github.com/jorgebucaran/color-bench-test/runs/371243...
Something tells me they wouldn’t be so calm about the whole affair
It's not always bad, but it stifles creativity and I believe has caused us to be stuck with libraries just because "they are popular and well-maintained" versus finding the actual ideal solution, the React ecosystem being a strong example of that. Not to mention that, contrary to what you would expect, the larger the company, the more often decisions will be made based on github star count, almost completely ignoring technical merit.