Open source ethics [modified]

[Roger Alsing 0]

Ok this might come off as a rant, and I guess it is to some extent. I just wanted to get your view on whats OK and not OK when it comes to branching opensource projects. Here is the story: A long time ago I released a project, "SyntaxBox" as opensource. And to be totally honest here, I wasn't very active with it after a while. The project was picked up by some guys "DotNetFireball" that imported my codebase into their framework. So far so good IMO, very nice that someone wants to keep the project alive and correct bugs etc. I even encouraged them for doing so. (They have two articles here http://www.codeproject.com/info/search.aspx?artkw=dotnetfireball&sbo=kw[^]) But the thing that kind of ticked me off a bit was that they: * Renamed all the classes. * Changed the name of the project from "SyntaxBox" to "CodeEditor" * And removed all traces of the origin except for a comment "finded on compona" in some of the source files. In some cases it looks like they are the authors of it. I'm well aware that they didn't do anything wrong according to the LGPL license. Am I just crazy and bitter to think that its odd to "re-brand" an entire project instead of providing the same fixes to the original host of the project?

My Blog

modified on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:18 AM

[Chris Austin]

Roger Alsing wrote:

Am I just crazy and bitter to think that its odd to "re-brand" an entire project instead of providing the same fixes to the original host of the project?

Besides odd, I find it disrespectful. Thats why in the open source projects I've worked on I favor a BSD style clause in the license that requires retention of a copyright notice in the source header. There has been some controversy about that but I think it is fair.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long

[James R Twine]

Are you sure they did not violate the LGPL by doing all that?  One thing that is not really understood about the LGPL is that it supplements the GPL, it does not replace it wholesale.  So many of the original terms of the GPL still apply, including copyright provisions.  Note clause 5:

5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms
of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
it, and giving a relevant date.

b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released
under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This
requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all
notices”.

Now, IANAL, but that sounds like they cannot remove "all traces of the origin" as you said.  Note that 5b mentions "modifies" instead of "replaces" the requirement in section 4.  I read that as leave all original notices verbatim, and add your own as necessary.    Peace!

-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * * If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles

[Corinna John]

Roger Alsing wrote:

* Renamed all the classes.

I think they adaped the names to fit the "foreign" code into the project. Come on, it's only names, empty words! A little more coffee would have made you name the project differently anyway... ;)

* Changed the name of the project from "SyntaxBox" to "CodeEditor"

That makes it more difficult to see where the project comes from. I would say it is not nice, but it is okay.

* And removed all traces of the origin except for a comment "finded on compona" in some of the source files. In some cases it looks like they are the authors of it.

Anti-social! All authors of the code should be visible, no matter how many lines the last author has changed. You should insist on being named in the class header comment, or at least in the readme.txt file. The license doesn't force them to keep your comments - but it is an unwritten law, is it?

This statement is false.

[Jim Crafton]

Without knowing their reasons for doing this, and I doubt they have good ones, I'd say it's pretty damn sleazy. Not necessarily surprising, but still very sleazy. They definitely deserve to be bitch-slapped with a heavy leather boot, preferably one with a steel toe.

¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog

[VentsyV]

It is open source what do you expect ? People take each others code, modify it, change it beyond recognition, thats the nature of the game. Now, given, your case is weird. If they made significant changes to your code, added significantly different functionality, I would understand them changing your classes around. Maybe thats what they intend to do, but they decided to first change your code to match their conventions \ other existing code ??? Anyhow, I would've left reference to the original author in the source and I would have mentioned something on my webpage along the lines that this software is derived from that software. However, if they are only doing bug fixes, thats a different story ... Why don't you drop them an email asking about their plans in regards to the project ? See what they have to say before you start making conclusions.

[Dario Solera]

They've been quite rude, IMHO. Sadly, typically Italian. :|

If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki

[Todd Smith]

As long as they give you credit you shouldn't really care what they do with it.

Todd Smith