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

Is Plagiarism Wrong?

thepointmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#51

Post by capableweb »

kiba wrote: post #39
capableweb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you bring up good points. I think the only difference between Open Source and Proprietary software is that one you're allowed to plagiarize, and the other you're not. In the end, Open Source wins as it automatically gets way more exposure and users, as anyone can access, copy, modify and freely share it forever.

I am sorry, what? Open source software license does not generally allow such thing.

I know we won't be able to get an answer to this question unless it actually goes to court (and I haven't seen anything about this any court), but couldn't you take any MIT licensed project, replace the license with your own and it'd be legal? My understanding is the license means you're allowed to freely modify anything related to the project (unless someone has a trademark/copyright of course)

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#52

Post by ensignavenger »

Sinergy2 wrote: post #47
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry, what? Open source software license does not generally allow such thing.

The GPL variants, for example, require you to allow others to plagiarize your work.

The GPLv3 specifically requires copyright notices to be kept in tact on verbatim copies. Other popular Open Source licenses have more stringent attribution requirements. Plagiarism is definitely not inherent to Open Source, though it may be inherent in some licenses.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#53

Post by ensignavenger »

capableweb wrote: post #51
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry, what? Open source software license does not generally allow such thing.

I know we won't be able to get an answer to this question unless it actually goes to court (and I haven't seen anything about this any court), but couldn't you take any MIT licensed project, replace the license with your own and it'd be legal? My understanding is the license means you're allowed to freely modify anything related to the project (unless someone has a trademark/copyright of course)

The MIT license actually has one requirement:

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

Attribution (In the form of this requirement) is the one thing the MIT license actually requires.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#54

Post by ensignavenger »

capableweb wrote: post #36
comboy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm too lazy to read the article (hey at least I'm honest), but I think you can have a working science/news with plagiarism. In our western culture everything is egocentric. You work hard to be remembered for milenia for wonderful things that you've done. We try to mention who first observed or invented something (even though it often happens in multiple places at once and only the most popular and best marketed pers…

I think you bring up good points. I think the only difference between Open Source and Proprietary software is that one you're allowed to plagiarize, and the other you're not. In the end, Open Source wins as it automatically gets way more exposure and users, as anyone can access, copy, modify and freely share it forever.

Many Open Source licenses require attribution. Here is a summary of some of the popular ones attribution requirements: https://www.nexb.com/blog/oss_attribution_obligations.html

As you can see here, plagiarism is not inherent to Open Source, and often times it is barred by the many of the most popular licenses.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#55

Post by robalni »

"Similarly, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a system in which we stop crediting the original source of the idea—one would just need to find a way to make it practicable. There is no moral bedrock in which prohibition of plagiarism is inscribed."

I think that's the main point of the article, and I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The problem is just that this can lead to other problems. One of them is lying; if you say that you made something you didn't, you are lying. Another one is that you can get rewarded for something you didn't make; it could be e.g. money or a job.

So in order to make it practicable we would have to find a way to either avoid all those other problems, or to make the change so small that we don't get those problems but in that case I don't know if there would practically be any difference.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#56

Post by pitay »

Here's a thought: What if there is a one or two categories missing from attributing or not attributing?

For a piece of work you could have:

1) Attributes the sources of works that comprise it. Honest, cannot think of a situation that it is inappropriate for people not bound by national security considerations and the like.

2) Does not attribute but explicitly states that they did not write it. Honest, but better to attribute. Not appropriate for anywhere the author needs to demonstrate their skill, such as academia. Not appropriate for things that explicitly or implicitly require attribution.

3) Does not attribute but it is implicit they didn't create it themselves. Limited applicability to things that the original author doesn't mind people spreading. Sharing jokes, memes and political slogans are obvious uses of this.

4) Doesn't attribute author and implicitly or explicitly gives the impression they were the original author. Traditional plagiarism. Utterly dishonest.

The usefulness of having these two extra categories (2 and 3) are that they differentiate between honest and dishonest people and that authors may want to release their works under a license that says they cannot claim they wrote the work themselves, thereby reducing the burden of future distributors of altered works having to include an ever-growing list of attributions as derived works move from person to person.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#57

Post by celeritascelery »

sentdex wrote: post #50
celeritascelery wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard to draw the line though. Is using stack overflow’s answers wrong? What about getting an algorithm from a text book? Obviously lifting an entire course is wrong. But nothing is created in a vacuum. Especially code, which feels more like math then English.

When you take an algorithm from a book, or copy and paste from stack overflow, you put a comment in the code with a link to the source, really no different than how you'd cite a quote in a paper. To me, it just doesn't seem like it's even remotely challenging to figure out how to do this, or when to do this. If it's not yours, say where you got it. When in doubt, cite it. What exactly would the harm be if you cited s…

> When you take an algorithm from a book, or copy and paste from stack overflow, you put a comment in the code with a link to the source, really no different than how you'd cite a quote in a paper.

You do this? That is very impressive. I have never meant anyone who did that. Myself included.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#58

Post by goto11 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #8

Plagiarism has more of a claim to being morally wrong than copyright violation, I would say. The notion of copyright only arose a few centuries ago, and even today a significant part of the world doesn’t really get the concept deep down. But when it comes to plagiarism, we have attestations even from antiquity (Martial, for instance) of creators complaining about their work being passed off as that of someone else.

Copyright only became an issue with the printing press since no author could make a living from publishing before that.

Before commercial publishing basically all authors where either independently wealthy or clergy, or they were hired by the rich or powerful.

Re: Is Plagiarism Wrong?

#59

Post by goto11 »

robbrown451 wrote: post #44

I can understand a 6 year old being confused. They (maybe) aren't old enough to grasp that actually composing something like a poem is the hard part. At that age, memorizing and writing it down can seem like an impressive feat all by itself, possibly even more impressive than the composing part. All the more true for a kid under the circumstances described (challenges with English due to immigrating, etc). With an ad…

As I understand the story, it wasn't really about "taking credit". The kid did not deny the poem was from a book, they just didn't understand it wasn't supposed to be.

It was probably more a case of misunderstanding expectations. Some tradition of education have a large emphasis on knowledge and memorization, while others have more emphasis on personal creativity.

Post reply on HN