Live data from Hacker News

Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

zigtools.org

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#71
post #52

Repo seems to be gone? User action or GitHub action? Regardless, for visibility as to maybe-why this happened, here are screenshots of the user editing comments to insult/make them say something they never did; https://imgur.com/a/LsvBXY1 https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https://github.co... The tool itself claims "Zero AI" ( https://www.zigbook.net/ ) yet is very obviously A-Lot-AI.

probably user reports to GitHub's moderation team

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#73
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The responds and edits are simply unprofessional and immature. I don't hate AI and in fact I use it for many research based tasks, helping me narrowing a lot of tough topics, but it is the People with these kind of attitude turns me off.

AI use is fine, though pretending you haven't used it when you obviously did rubs me the wrong way. I get why GitHub allows editing comments of other users though for public repos I guess it allows for this kind of abuse

Exactly, being dishonest is the real problem here.

Luckily, every edits are recorded in history, so they can't really hide their abusive behavior, for now. Even if they did, seem like there are often people faster in archiving their posts than they hiding their post.

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#75
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he isn’t. He’s just writing an AI slop book about Zig. Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that? He never said it’s an official book or backed by the Zig project. The trademark cudgel is used on people who release an incompatible language that they insist on calling Zig, confusing people who want to try Zig. Or people who add malware to the Zig tool chain and try to distribute that. Trademark can’t be used…

> Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that? Incorrect. Not honoring the attribution requirement in the MIT license is a copyright infringement because it violates the terms of the license, which are legally enforceable conditions.

We are specifically talking about what the Zig project/foundation headed by Andy Kelley can do to such bad actors using the Zig trademark - which is exactly nothing.

I wouldn't be so quick with the "incorrect" if I were you. You haven't even taken the trouble to read two sentences.

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#77
post #52

Repo seems to be gone? User action or GitHub action? Regardless, for visibility as to maybe-why this happened, here are screenshots of the user editing comments to insult/make them say something they never did; https://imgur.com/a/LsvBXY1 https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https://github.co... The tool itself claims "Zero AI" ( https://www.zigbook.net/ ) yet is very obviously A-Lot-AI.

It's unbelievable to me that Github allows repo admins to edit other people's comments.

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#78
post #52

Repo seems to be gone? User action or GitHub action? Regardless, for visibility as to maybe-why this happened, here are screenshots of the user editing comments to insult/make them say something they never did; https://imgur.com/a/LsvBXY1 https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https://github.co... The tool itself claims "Zero AI" ( https://www.zigbook.net/ ) yet is very obviously A-Lot-AI.

It's unbelievable to me that Github allows repo admins to edit other people's comments.

What would be a valid reason to allow this? That just seems mind-numbingly stupid.

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#79
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is actually beginning to encourage "restricted source", public-only-gets-binary debates to simply avoid such legal issues. Write a snail-mail letter to get the real sources. Repositories are private with a small well-vetted list of contributors. Also avoid slop-PR headaches that away.

If you were licensing MIT, ostensibly it’s not the copying you care about, just the attribution. There is always the option to turn off prs, or even distribute code without using github.

GitHub has never allowed public repos to disable PRs in particular. There's no setting for that.

Re: Zigbook Is Plagiarizing the Zigtools Playground

#80
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement It's crazy how many people treat MIT as if it were public domain.

This probably depends on country, but AFAIK in most of europe, even in public domain, the „you can’t pass another’s work as your own” part of copyright is still active and doesn’t expire.

This piques my interest, what is the legally required recognition of a derivative's parent work? Must I be able to list dependencies, or should I be able to verify whether a parent work is included in mine? What if my work is a second derivative of a work which I am unaware of, because the work in between improperly didn't recognise its parent? Am I legally responsible to investigate such cases?
Post reply on HN