Is it time for a sci-hub like event to replace github? It would be better for the repository of nearly all modern public programming creativity be something more like Wikipedia, and less like LinkedIn.
GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
21–30 of 194 posts
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#22Not totally unrelated: Pearson is a piece of trash company. They sell very overpriced textbooks and always use DRM in online copies. They lobby for standardized tests in states and get them mandated. Students are put through them. And guess who provides the certificate required by teachers to evaluate those exam copies? Yes, Pearson. And they make a ton of money. Please watch this talk for more context (even if you d…
Also, they release new versions of books all the time and force their use in classes, making it impossible to use 2nd hand textbooks in a lot of cases.
*I mean, come on. How of ten do fundamental physics change...
Pearson is a company that should not exist.
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#23If you're just looking for the algorithms, there's always this C# port (from 7 years ago): https://github.com/angellaa/algs4
Interestingly, the README includes an e-mail exchange with Kevin, who noted the code is GPL
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#24That seems odd, given that Kevin Wayne is co-author of the 4th edition of "Algorithms".
Kevin Wayne is one of the co-authors of the book, but the copyright listing is "Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc." and there does not appear to be anything in the book that says that the code is GPL licensed.
Presumably Kevin Wayne was given the right to license the code as GPL, but that fact didn't get included in the text of the book, and the f*cking, stupid copyright bot Pearson uses didn't get the memo.
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#25Is it time for a sci-hub like event to replace github? It would be better for the repository of nearly all modern public programming creativity be something more like Wikipedia, and less like LinkedIn.
Given the technical nature of the work, developers who can't jive with GitHub's policies can throw up a GitLab/Gitea server in an hour and evade censorship. And of course, as we learned with youtube-dl, the issue isn't the code/commits (since everyone gets that with a git clone), it's the issues and PR history.
Any public file host has to deal with the DMCA, and (for now, barring any evil brought on by Microsoft), I'd bet on GitHub siding with the developer over the lawyers. They had lots of incentives to go the other way in the youtube-dl case and they didn't, and then they put a bunch of money in a fund if someone wants needs a lawyer to get their project back online.
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#26This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added to an exception list, problem solved. It's not ideal, but it's not malicious or nefarious or even worth talking about every time something like this happens. It's a simple mistake that has a simple solution.
> or even worth talking about every time something like this happens I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like. Github is obviously not nearly this bad (yet?). This case will obviou…
> I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like.
YouTube/Google is bad because they use their own system instead of or in addition to the system required to get the DMCA safe harbor.
For sites that simply follow DMCA, such as GitHub, there is no need for the issue to reach the news. There is no need to be popular or have any reach. The most obscure poster with no audience can easily get their content restored. Here is what happens at such sites:
1. Someone claiming to represent the copyright owner files a take down request.
2. The site temporarily takes the content down, and notifies whoever posted the content.
3. The poster files a counter-notice saying that they have the legal right to post the content.
4. The site put the content back up, and notifies the party that filed the take down notice, telling them who filed the counter-notice.
The site is then out of the loop. The content is back up, and the party claiming copyright violation cannot sue the site over this. The site is now in the DMCA safe harbor. If the party claiming violation wants to take it farther, they need to go to court and sue the party that posted the content.
The counter-notice is trivial to fill out and file. Here's the one for this case [1] if you want to see how simple the form is.
[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2...
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What seems odd is that the code is freely licenced to the public, no matter who wrote it. These DMCA requests are created and acted upon without the slightest checking, with no penalty. There should be some sort of modest cost somewhere to stop this nonsense.
> There should be some sort of modest cost somewhere to stop this nonsense. Playing the Devil's Advocate here: But wouldn't that in turn incentivise actual copyright infringement on account of it potentially being cheaper to mass publish copyrighted material as opposed to request it being taken down?
I hadn't thought about that angle before. Is the public interest best served by adding friction to copyright enforcement, or by adding friction to fair use?
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#28Not totally unrelated: Pearson is a piece of trash company. They sell very overpriced textbooks and always use DRM in online copies. They lobby for standardized tests in states and get them mandated. Students are put through them. And guess who provides the certificate required by teachers to evaluate those exam copies? Yes, Pearson. And they make a ton of money. Please watch this talk for more context (even if you d…
Also, they release new versions of books all the time and force their use in classes, making it impossible to use 2nd hand textbooks in a lot of cases. *I mean, come on. How of ten do fundamental physics change... Pearson is a company that should not exist.
Plugging open source text books. There are many high quality option out there that are openly licensed. Openstax is a project by Rice University that has textbooks for most gen ed courses.
openstax.org/
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#29If this was a youtube channel takedown people would be mad at Google, but good to see at least here HN is blaming the bad actors like they should - ie. the copyright laws and its abusers.
Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down
#30That seems odd, given that Kevin Wayne is co-author of the 4th edition of "Algorithms".
What seems odd is that the code is freely licenced to the public, no matter who wrote it. These DMCA requests are created and acted upon without the slightest checking, with no penalty. There should be some sort of modest cost somewhere to stop this nonsense.
As long as they're properly filled out, they have to be acted on if the provider wants to keep their safe harbour status.