Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#2Write your own if it is very simple. If he is gone it is just to just write your own version. The contributor agreement that requires signature is there for a reason.
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#3thought this would be a mystery about a coder who disappeared that surfaced via pull request
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#4Write your own if it is very simple. If he is gone it is just to just write your own version. The contributor agreement that requires signature is there for a reason.
Write your own what? Code? If so, it could be argued in court that you're still violating copyright, because you looked at the code beforehand. At least, that's what happens with anti-reverse-engineering clauses.
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#5Write your own if it is very simple. If he is gone it is just to just write your own version. The contributor agreement that requires signature is there for a reason.
Write your own what? Code? If so, it could be argued in court that you're still violating copyright, because you looked at the code beforehand. At least, that's what happens with anti-reverse-engineering clauses.
I think it depends on how different it is, as to whether it will be a violation. And just how different is going to be a subjective decision made by a judge on a case by case basis... if anyone ever bothered to take the issue that far to begin with.
If it's found reasonable to assume that a certain 'copy' of the code could be indistinguishable of that made by another person who didn't look at the original code... then it's probably not similar enough to be infringing.
I would even go so far as to say that I think if such a case _was_ ever brought, that unless someone paid enough money to hire subject matter experts to testify, the case may likely be thrown out because the judge is not able to make an informed decision with such lack of evidence.
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#6Nice article, written by someone who IMO clearly has some first-hand experience in law, carefully considering multiple angles of what might be considered "reasonable" actions to make and their possible consequences.
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#7Write your own if it is very simple. If he is gone it is just to just write your own version. The contributor agreement that requires signature is there for a reason.
Write your own what? Code? If so, it could be argued in court that you're still violating copyright, because you looked at the code beforehand. At least, that's what happens with anti-reverse-engineering clauses.
I tried finding the pr they referenced, but wasn't able to in a minute of looking, but I did find https://github.com/spectreconsole/spectre.console/pull/1403 which is a null fix.
Presuming the PR in question is similar, one would likely be able to successfully argue that the code in the PR is trivial enough to not be covered by copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
I think it's an entirely valid argument given the variables names are defined by the original code and the style is defined by a style guide, the only addition here is a intrinsic utilitarian function without any artistic expression.
That said, I am not a lawyer, so who knows how it would actually play out in court if it went that far.
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Write your own what? Code? If so, it could be argued in court that you're still violating copyright, because you looked at the code beforehand. At least, that's what happens with anti-reverse-engineering clauses.
I tried finding the pr they referenced, but wasn't able to in a minute of looking, but I did find https://github.com/spectreconsole/spectre.console/pull/1403 which is a null fix. Presuming the PR in question is similar, one would likely be able to successfully argue that the code in the PR is trivial enough to not be covered by copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... I think it's an…
You're right, for something that small it probably wouldn't be an issue, but something larger or non-obvious would be risky. I'm cautioning people against thinking "if I rewrite it, it's fine".
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#9Write your own if it is very simple. If he is gone it is just to just write your own version. The contributor agreement that requires signature is there for a reason.
Write your own what? Code? If so, it could be argued in court that you're still violating copyright, because you looked at the code beforehand. At least, that's what happens with anti-reverse-engineering clauses.
You’re allowed to describe how it works to someone else and have them write it.
If you can write a full specification of the code without any code snippets, or write a full TDD test set, and hand it off to someone who can swear they’ve never looked at the source material, you can still pull off a clean-room copy.
I had to do that for a small lib due to European copyright laws. They don’t like Public Domain. There’s some precedent where the author can change their mind and sue because you can’t actually consent to not consenting to people using your stuff. MIT is great, PD is the Bog of Stench.
Re: Missing open-source contributor presents a dilemma when accepting their PR
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Write your own what? Code? If so, it could be argued in court that you're still violating copyright, because you looked at the code beforehand. At least, that's what happens with anti-reverse-engineering clauses.
You’re allowed to describe how it works to someone else and have them write it. If you can write a full specification of the code without any code snippets, or write a full TDD test set, and hand it off to someone who can swear they’ve never looked at the source material, you can still pull off a clean-room copy. I had to do that for a small lib due to European copyright laws. They don’t like Public Domain. There’s s…
Yep, this is correct, you probably should document the process of description and implementation.