<cite>@pspeed said:</cite>
Regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter, if you post code publicly with an open source license then it is open source. So if you want to post something and still own it then leave the open source licenses out of it.
And regardless, it’s irrelevant because this level of copying wasn’t done anyway.
I agree. But it’s bad form. It’s disrespectful and damning to see your work used by others without your consent.
I would never do this. I’d prefer waiting and if I’d come to the conclusion that I need it ASAP I wouldn’t release it in a way suggesting it was MY work. And even if I swap shoes for a sec here, seeing the ruckus that it caused I would’ve back-pedaled and profusely excused myself in public.
Paul, would you have done it? I know the answer but still…
<cite>@t0neg0d said:</cite>
@pspeed The code was made available at @nehon 's request. Which part of this are people missing? No one would have had it otherwise.
I was asked to make this available to the JME dev team. And now that same group of people are telling me… you shared it! To fucking bad for you…
One more thing I might add to this is, it happened here.
It’s not someone that browsed the site, landing here from god-knows-where, found the code, released it elsewhere and at a certain point in the future we happen to find out. It was “one of us”. That would personally hurt me a whole lot more than anything else.
I would still be pissed someone took my work, but it’s a totally different ballgame when it’s someone you’ve come to think as someone you can “trust” (as much as trust in community members you can have).
What kills me is… I recall a time when something VERY similar happened to @zarch . Wow, was he livid. So livid, that he decided to return the favor by doing the same thing to someone else. I also recall standing up for him when it happened… thinking that it was terrible to have this happen to someone. Ok, the situation wasn’t quite as obvious as this one, but it was the general scenario that is happening here. The only difference was, his code was not posted somewhere where it was accessible and @momoko_fan wrote his own version of what was useful to JME.
In this case, the code was available at the request of the core dev team. In which I made one condition:
That I would be allowed to continue to work on the code and help maintain it, further it along. @nehon replied with “agreed!”
If the decision had been made to take the code, hand it someone else and tell me to take a flying leap… I would have been okay with it. But ONLY if I had been given a chance to make the decision myself. I am starting to get the impression that the core dev team was WELL AWARE that this was happening and just decided that it was okay.
@t0neg0d said:
@normen I'll quote this one more time...
I was asked to make this available to the JME dev team. And now that same group of people are telling me… you shared it! To fucking bad for you…
It doesn’t alleviate the general ego issue or the outcome of point 4 and 5. You might have noticed we also get flak oftentimes, have people try to “steal” users with their “better” code etc. Thats all part of open source development. And well, yes, if you put up code to googlecode with a license on it, this can happen… I didn’t say “too bad for you” or anything like that, I still try to find out what that “bad” would be.
As for the availability of your code… You seem to imply that its nehons fault that zarch got hold of your code and did what he did. Is that the problem, yes?
@t0neg0d: The code is currently located on a public google code repository with jME3’s BSD open source license on it. This means anybody on the internet can find it, grab it, and call it theirs. It’s not plagiarism because the license specifically allows it. Hence you already gave full permission to @zarch to use your code, assuming he follows the terms of the license.
If you didn’t want anybody to use it you should have changed the license.
I would have done the same as @zarch if I was in his position.
@madjack said:
I agree. But it's bad form. It's disrespectful and damning to see your work used by others without your consent.
I would never do this. I’d prefer waiting and if I’d come to the conclusion that I need it ASAP I wouldn’t release it in a way suggesting it was MY work. And even if I swap shoes for a sec here, seeing the ruckus that it caused I would’ve back-pedaled and profusely excused myself in public.
Paul, would you have done it? I know the answer but still…
The thing is, I was there while he was writing it. I was there for the early design discussions where he considered multiple approaches. I was there when he did redesigns based on things he was seeing in the implementation. I was there when he was tracking down buffer problems and ultimately refactored that section of his code, also. These were all discussions that happened outside of the forums. So I got to see the journey that led to this final project and it’s hard to see others bashing him for plagiarizing someone else’s (open source) code.
I was also there when he decided to port some of the existing influencers. It seemed reasonable to want to save as much of her work as possible since it could be seen as him now pushing a competing framework.
The fact that they are so similar is partially because the designs are good and good designs will be similar, partially because he did look at her work, and partially because some of the influencers were ported directly. (Which I had a feeling would come back to bite him but I’m kind of seen as paranoid among the core devs these days so I kept my mouth shut.)
<cite>@normen said:</cite>
It doesn't alleviate the general ego issue or the outcome of point 4 and 5. You might have noticed we also get flak oftentimes, have people try to "steal" users with their "better" code etc. Thats all part of open source development. And well, yes, if you put up code to googlecode with a license on it, this can happen.. I didn't say "too bad for you" or anything like that, I still try to find out what that "bad" would be.
As for the availability of your code… You seem to imply that its nehons fault that zarch got hold of your code and did what he did. Is that the problem, yes?
@normen This scenario is fucked up… there is no other way of looking at it. I realize you have no interest in admitting this, and I haven’t asked you to (yet)… but what is it that has you responding to this? I’m not sure what you are getting at… give me a yes or no answer on this and then we can continue to discuss whatever it is you are trying to get at:
You are asked to post your code for review by a dev team.
Someone kypes your code and releases it as theirs
Would you be pissed? If your answer is anything other than yes… you are full of shit.
In the original thread I posted a link to the repository and said that people could try it out while it was being reviewed.
Look, you all should be happy I am out of here… I tend to piss everyone off anyways. Is this just an attempt to take a couple final swipes at me while I’m on my way out? Or are you trying to get some point across? So far, it just seems like you’re avoiding the actual issue (which is PLAIN AS FUCKING DAY) just to poke at me one more time.
@madjack said:
Paul, would you have done it? I know the answer but still...
And to answer this question specifically… “No” in fact. I generally hate everyone else’s code and only use it when it’s easier than rewriting it myself. It’s a weakness.
I can count the number of people on one hand whose code I would trust implicitly and none of them hang out here.
<cite>@Momoko_Fan said:</cite>
@t0neg0d: The code is currently located on a public google code repository with jME3's BSD open source license on it. This means anybody on the internet can find it, grab it, and call it theirs. It's not plagiarism because the license specifically allows it. Hence you already gave full permission to @zarch to use your code, assuming he follows the terms of the license.
If you didn’t want anybody to use it you should have changed the license.
I would have done the same as @zarch if I was in his position.
I don’t see an author name on ANY of the source code. It was removed.
I am guessing that you all do realize that this is a public forum and your responses reflect heavily on people’s decision as to whether or not they feel comfortable contributing ANYTHING to this engine. If I had known the type of people I was dealing with, I would have stopped using this 2 years ago. I certainly would have NEVER contributed to this project in any way.
<cite>@pspeed said:</cite>
And to answer this question specifically... "No" in fact. I generally hate everyone else's code and only use it when it's easier than rewriting it myself. It's a weakness.
I can count the number of people on one hand whose code I would trust implicitly and none of them hang out here.
Wow… you ooze douche-baggedness. And someone threw the word ego in my direction lol
@t0neg0d: As the license states, modifications are allowed assuming the copyright notice is intact. In the source code, the copyright notice is indeed intact …
I believe every conflict can be resolved until proven otherwise. Tim @zarch was involved in one of these major conflicts before, and thanks to his mature and solution oriented attitude, not only did we manage to return to civility, we made actual progress. I hate to admit it, but in this case here’s no point trying to diffuse the situation. Consider me convinced.
Tim has been trying his utmost to communicate and collaborate from the start. He never had any intention to claim your work as his own, as was made evident in internal talks leading up to the release. In his release post as well as wiki page, there was also no question about your involvement. We’ve had cases of missed attribution in the past and had no issue owning up to it and taking necessary action. This is not one of them, and calling “foul play!” on such weak ground is extremely poor form.
The whole idea behind open source is to make your work freely available for others to use, pitch in on, iterate upon, remix or be inspired by. It’s also a safety net. Should you become unable to continue your work for an unforeseeable amount of time, as so very unfortunately was the case with you, your code might not remain stagnant. Personally, I think that’s beautiful. If you take offense by your code being used in any such context, you’re in the wrong mindset for this development practice. There are two natural, common responses to what Tim did:
Cool, you used my code! I like what you did, let’s keep working on it together.
Cool, you used my code! However I disagree with your changes and I’ll keep working on my own thing.
Either is perfectly fine. The worst case scenario is supposed to be that we end up with two separate projects that may have to compete for the popular vote / core inclusion. You on the other hand opted for the utterly unworkable path, and now we’re left with this. The worst case scenario that wasn’t supposed to exist.
I’m sad to see you go, if only because I thought you had it in you to be a more accommodating and perceptive person than your initial exchanges alluded to. I hate to have been this wrong. You and this community are not a good match. I wish you the best of luck finding your place elsewhere.
<cite>@Momoko_Fan said:</cite>
@t0neg0d: As the license states, modifications are allowed assuming the copyright notice is intact. In the source code, the copyright notice is indeed intact ...
To the letter of the law! Another one to add to the “I need to avoid this person at all costs list, because they hold no value of other people”.
Seriously… why do you refer to this as the JME “Community”? Why not be honest about it… The JME “We look out for the one person that matters to us, ourselves… be warned… the rest of you are fodder”.
I believe every conflict can be resolved until proven otherwise. Tim @zarch was involved in one of these major conflicts before, and thanks to his mature and solution oriented attitude, not only did we manage to return to civility, we made actual progress. I hate to admit it, but in this case here’s no point trying to diffuse the situation. Consider me convinced.
Tim has been trying his utmost to communicate and collaborate from the start. He never had any intention to claim your work as his own, as was made evident in internal talks leading up to the release. In his release post as well as wiki page, there was also no question about your involvement. We’ve had cases of missed attribution in the past and had no issue owning up to it and taking necessary action. This is not one of them, and calling “foul play!” on such weak ground is extremely poor form.
The whole idea behind open source is to make your work freely available for others to use, pitch in on, iterate upon, remix or be inspired by. It’s also a safety net. Should you become unable to continue your work for an unforeseeable amount of time, as so very unfortunately was the case with you, your code might not remain stagnant. Personally, I think that’s beautiful. If you take offense by your code being used in any such context, you’re in the wrong mindset for this development practice. There are two natural, common responses to what Tim did:
Cool, you used my code! I like what you did, let’s keep working on it together.
Cool, you used my code! However I disagree with your changes and I’ll keep working on my own thing.
Either is perfectly fine. The worst case scenario is supposed to be that we end up with two separate projects that may have to compete for the popular vote / core inclusion. You on the other hand opted for the utterly unworkable path, and now we’re left with this. The worst case scenario that wasn’t supposed to exist.
I’m sad to see you go, if only because I thought you had it in you to be a more accommodating and perceptive person than your initial exchanges alluded to. I hate to have been this wrong. You and this community are not a good match. I wish you the best of luck finding your place elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Erlend
Ooooo! PR swoops in to smooth over the decision to fuck someone! Good move! I’m am baffled by every one of you now. I actually (somewhere in me) thought that you might see this as an issue, buuuuut… hey! I’ve been wrong many times before.
Being mature isn’t offering a handshake to a group of thieves. It’s knowing when you have associated yourself with the wrong kind of people and make a decision to change something before someone else does something to you.
…
I don’t really know what to say… I didn’t realize giving the link of the google code repo to @zarch was wrong.
I didn’t even realized it was an unfinished work.
If I have to take the blame for this, so be it really…
I’m sorry.
