Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 309 posts

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#111

Post by krono »

Zerverus wrote: post #83
krono wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does seem very aggressive in his attempts to get this into as many popular packages (and/or onto as many machines) as he can in the shortest amount of time. According to the original project's author, he even silently removed loads of edge case handlers until he was called out on it [0]. That seems to have been a really quick and dirty tactic to get his performance numbers up. My spidey senses are tingling too. [0…

Wouldnt be surprised if the package then gets sold to some shady people. Desperate people do desperate things and this surely looks desperate.

Only just now noticed I've worked with Andrey on several issues in other projects he's involved with (there are many).

For what it's worth, these dealings left me with a very solid impression of his person, one that his current behaviour does not at all match.

It is either just a really bad judgement call and an even worse handling of the resulting fallout, or, if something fishy is indeed going on, the result of some external source of pressure (blackmail, money problems, compromised account, ect.).

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#114

Post by rafaelturk »

From your own code: https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/blob/main/LICENSE....

Copyright © Jorge Bucaran https://jorgebucaran.com>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the 'Software'), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS', WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#115

Post by otrahuevada »

What I find absolutely baffling about all this is that it could have been avoided by adding a throwaway line about how this library is a fork of the other one with performance in mind.

A lot of drama can often be avoided if people just communicate better.

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#116

Post by rafaelturk »

ctvo wrote: post #38

I'm losing my mind with people who keep replying with "That's open source baby! Don't make it open source if you don't like!" The problem with this behavior is as follows: - The MIT license requires attribution of the original work. The author contacted the person who forked this privately [1]. It wasn't done until the Twitter thread. - Questionably the fork was renamed and didn't include git history to make the firs…

We'll but's that is what in the LICENSE, MIT, so yes it just this..

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#118

Post by enumjorge »

riffraff wrote: post #92
judofyr wrote: post #40

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…

Cascade of attention deficit[0]? 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. [0] https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

> I don't think there's anything malicious going on

The dev who copied the code forked someone’s repo, went out of his way to remove attribution and git history, sent PRs to replace the original package in other libraries with his own version, and when called out on it got defensive instead of apologizing. I think malicious is a fair way to describe his behavior.

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#119

Post by rafaelturk »

masswerk wrote: post #97
penjelly wrote: post #74

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.

It's about plagiarism.

No it's not. Because freeuse, is explicitly declared in the LICENSE, MIT. So no, it's not even close to be plagiarism.

Re: A notable JavaScript developer shamelessly copied one of my most downloaded nod

#120

Post by masswerk »

rafaelturk wrote: post #119
masswerk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about plagiarism.

No it's not. Because freeuse, is explicitly declared in the LICENSE, MIT. So no, it's not even close to be plagiarism.

A is the unchanged inclusion of the license statement including the attribution.

Sorry. You are not free to strip a MIT license.

(Even, if this would not be the explicitly stated in the license, everything adhering to any kind of publication would still apply. E.g., pretending that the work of others having originated genuinely from you would be considered as plagiarism.)

Edit: To make this clear, the question of license violation has nothing to do with the question of plagiarism. These are on entirely different levels. One is about use, the other is about authorship. (As it happens, the MIT license has also something to say about any note of authorship included in the license statement.)

Post reply on HN