Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bit that gets me about the defenses of Emde: He "punched" Shaw . Admittedly, this is a point that people defending the guy (and from the current state of the project's readme, himself) only acknowledge in the most grudging way, but it's there - Edme wronged the guy. But I'm to take it that Shaw is wrong because he's not friendly in his response to that? It's trite to make remarks about Asperger, social dysfunctio…
No, he bumped into Shaw. Nothing points towards malice at all. In most parts of modern society, the honest response would be along the lines of, "Dude, what were you thinking?"
"Please take this down and write your own book."
171–178 of 178 posts
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, he bumped into Shaw. Nothing points towards malice at all. In most parts of modern society, the honest response would be along the lines of, "Dude, what were you thinking?"
Let me know when bumping into someone is a federal offense.
What I am trying to argue is that Martin wasn't being malicious, he made an honest (albeit stupid) mistake. It sounds like he believed that Zed would be thrilled that someone was extending LPTHW to Ruby and didn't realize he was committing copyright infringement in the process. To be clear this in no way excuses him from the consequences.
I am drawing this conclusion from the following: Martin acknowledged Zed's authorship and that Martin contacted Zed to let him know about the project. I am also speculating that Martin was ignorant of the licensing and assumed a permissive license. LPTHW is distributed for free (as in beer) and Zed has released a lot of other things for free (as in freedom). It's not that much of a stretch to see how someone could assuming that this "free" book was open.
Zed had every right to ask Martin to stop writing the book. I don't feel that calling Martin "classless" was called for however, given that Martin seems to be a Zed fanboy of sorts.
For some reason you seem to think that I am arguing that Zed is 100% in the wrong. I am not. I'm just saying that both acted in a manner that is unbecoming of civilized people.
As an analogy, let's say I wrote some fan-fiction based on a story I really like. In the process I copied too much of the original source. I publish it on my blog and e-mail the author of the story a link to it, thinking that the author will excited to know that she inspired me to write and will maybe enjoy seeing a different take on her work.
Instead calls me classless for not writing my own original story and tells me to remove it from my blog.
While she has every right to ask me to remove it considered I'd copied too much of the original work, I wasn't trying to offend her - just the opposite in fact!
Was I wrong? Yes, of course. I posted her copyrighted story on my blog. Was I classless? I would argue no - my intent wasn't to write an original story, but to extend a story that I loved.
At this point, I might be tempted to call her out for calling me classless (which I really shouldn't do, and Martin did), but it's easy to see how I could feel that way. A simple "please remove this" would have been sufficient, I would have realized my error and I wouldn't feel bitter about the exchange.
TL;DR - There is a difference between being ethically wrong and legally wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
" An equally important part is to refrain from doing it " No, that would be closer to the "asking permission" philosophy.
It's better to ask for forgiveness, but asking permission, when feasible and practical (Zed ignored the guy, after all) is nice.
1) Ask permission.
2) If you don't get permission, do it anyway.
3) Complain and berate the people you crossed if you suffer consequences from doing it anyway.
Gah. I think I've had quite enough of talking with you.
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me know when bumping into someone is a federal offense.
I think the problem is that we are arguing two different things here. You are arguing that Martin committed a crime and acted like a douchebag. I agree 100% with this. I am in no way trying to defend Martin's copyright infringement. What Martin did was wrong and Zed had every right to ask him to take down the book. What I am trying to argue is that Martin wasn't being malicious, he made an honest (albeit stupid) mist…
I'm really disturbed by the mentality that Edme and his supporters, including you, have put forward: if you do something wrong, that should be instantly forgivable, and anyone showing any anger or disapproval towards you is at least as wrong as you are. I think it shows up in worse cases than this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1880467
Edme has at least twigged that most other people aren't buying it. I've no idea when you will clue in, but I'm not responding to you further on this issue.
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is that we are arguing two different things here. You are arguing that Martin committed a crime and acted like a douchebag. I agree 100% with this. I am in no way trying to defend Martin's copyright infringement. What Martin did was wrong and Zed had every right to ask him to take down the book. What I am trying to argue is that Martin wasn't being malicious, he made an honest (albeit stupid) mist…
No, your problem is that you're unwilling to acknowledge that Edme committed an intentional act that was wrong - and that Shaw didn't. Shaw's mildly harsh reaction to Edme's act does not make him "the bad guy", and it does not even make him "a bad guy" or "one of the bad guys in this situation". I'm really disturbed by the mentality that Edme and his supporters, including you, have put forward: if you do something wr…
I'm just trying to say that when people make mistakes they should be corrected, but correcting them politely is more effective. I think this is especially true when the person who made the mistake looks up to you.
You are free to disagree with that, but please stop putting words in my mouth.
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, you have just said that Zed's response was "mildly harsh". It looks like we agree with each other. I think Martin committed copyright infringement and that Zed's response was mildly harsh (I think I initially used the word "rude").
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think what you did was classless. I think you should try again, but with class" If I said that to you, would you be insulted? I said nothing about your character, and if anything, he was being encouraging. And then, you're pissed at Zed calling them hippies, after telling him "good fucking riddance" and displaying exactly the behavior that he defines as being a hippie ("all about the love, except when you're not"…
Your response was really idiotic. How do you feel about this statement? Of course, I didn't mean it - your statement is very well reasoned, but when Zed turned his interests towards the Python language and the largely civilized community around it, I worried that his behaviour could become, if not the norm, a trend. I have strong ties to this community and my work largely depends on its health. Zed's divisive. No com…
Ultimately, you are right that Zed is divisive, possibly because he's taken "you can't please everybody" too far, and I wouldn't want any significant number of people to have Zed's personality, even though I tend to take his side on topics I know anything about.
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's better to ask for forgiveness, but asking permission, when feasible and practical (Zed ignored the guy, after all) is nice.
So the steps you really suggest are: 1) Ask permission. 2) If you don't get permission, do it anyway. 3) Complain and berate the people you crossed if you suffer consequences from doing it anyway. Gah. I think I've had quite enough of talking with you.
1- ask for permission
2- if you don't get an answer, assume the subject is not that important to the person you asked
3- Do it
4- If person who ignored you denies you permission retroactively, comply
5- Complain when the person who ignored you and then denied you permission to do what you already did, which you promptly removed from public access, also insults you for no reason beyond not getting his attention in the first place.
I think that covers it very thoroughly.
Re: "Please take this down and write your own book."
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I messaged you on Twitter and contacted you by email to try to give you knowledge of it. I was quite public about doing it as a _why day project. I made a good faith effort to let you know what I was working on. I even knew you were working on having a learn code the hard way thing and I wanted to contribute but there's no clear outline of your goals or how you expect people to contribute. This is my understanding o…
If the license clearly states you cannot modify the work, then you cannot modify the work . It doesn't matter how many times you contact the guy with no response, the license was there since the beginning. And you're only pointing out one side of the story. The chain of reaction was (mostly paraphrased) 1. ignore license and author's express wishes 2. "please stop and have some class" 3. "Don't be upset at me, I thou…
Is a translation a modified version of the original or a new, although derived, work? Two good lawyers could debate this issue until the universe cools down. We shouldn't.