
Not true - choult
https://github.com/Luehang/react-native-gallery-swiper/pull/44
======
chownie
The line of defense here is really strange, in order the author runs a whole
gamut

1\. No this code is original, it's not copied

2\. Yes it's copied but it's MIT so it's okay

3\. No actually they copied me and being MIT means you can't sue me

4\. You are a "junior" developer and actually you're jealous of my
achievements which is why you made this issue

5\. "Loser"

6\. Author locks the PR

7\. Author renames the PR to hide it

8\. Author archives the whole project, but takes some time first to write his
rebuttal in the PR where no one can reply

Really bizarre response

~~~
rvz
This reaction looks like he's more guilty in this situation and his infant-
like behaviour is shown here.

While it's MIT and allows him to modify, improve, etc he didn't read this last
sentence in the archriss/react-native-image-gallery library:

    
    
      ...provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
    

No credit was given despite having a 98% derived copy of the source.

After (3), the 'argument' descends into personal attacks. He definitely knows
he's in the wrong and is smoke-screening the discussion by locking, archiving
and hiding the PR, like a 'professional lead senior developer'.

------
claudiawerner
A very similar thing happened to me a few months ago. A couple of years ago I
had written a certain small piece of web software (about 1.2k lines long) and
put it on GitHub. On Wikipedia, I saw that there was some software which did
the same thing, which I'd never heard of before. Interested to see how it was
implemented, I browsed the files in their GitHub repo and saw my exact code in
there, with a few tweaks and improvements made by someone else. I didn't
appear to be credited.

This was all complicated by the fact I released the code initially under a
public domain license. However, I forgot that I used a small snippet of some
GPL code, and re-licensed to GPL a few days later. Unfortunately, I hadn't
made any concrete change to the code after relicensing, so I couldn't tell if
the _public domain_ version or the _GPL_ version of my code was 'stolen' (for
lack of a better word).

When I alerted the project owner about this matter on their Discord server,
with all the good will I could manage (the only way I could find to contact
them), a sizable project of ~20 people, my message was deleted and I was
banned. In the end, they added credit to me for the code (and my code _was_
their entire project, plus some bugfixes), but I don't think they relicensed
to GPLv3. I doubt the author of the GPL'd snippet would bother to pursue it.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
In all fairness, if they derived from the public domain version then they have
no reason to relicense to GPLv3. The rest of it is at best impolite, though.

~~~
claudiawerner
The point was that I mistakenly used a snippet of GPLv3 licensed code (which
was explicitly licensed in the snippet), and then mistakenly licensed the
whole thing as public domain. I think it may have been illegal for me to say
that it's public domain if I used that snippet. That's why I quickly
relicensed. However, git commit history is forever, and one git commit
contains the GPL snippet + my public domain declaration.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Ah, I misunderstood; yeah, a combination of PD+GPLv3 would have to be GPLv3

------
datenhorst
I get the feeling that the owner didn't quite understand the request and
promptly freaked out.

------
casperb
Luckily I handled it better (I think) when it happened to me in 2015. I forked
a MIT licensed project and improved it because it was a mess but useful.
Turned out that project was copied from another project that was LGPLv3
licensed but all license/copyright info was removed.

He was a bit aggressive about it, what I understand if someone steals your
code without mentioning you.

The violation notice: [https://github.com/picqer/php-barcode-
generator/issues/3](https://github.com/picqer/php-barcode-generator/issues/3)

------
typingmonkey
That is the reason why I let issues that sound bad, uncommented for at least
one day. When you read it later again, you have a completely different mind
about it, often a better one.

------
PedroBatista
Our "industry" is in a perpetual state of juvenile teenage behavior and right
now the frontend-dev sector takes the cake.

~~~
Chris2048
I think it's unfair to say that based on this one maintainer; these things
make "the news" because they are abnormal, or at least unexpected. I think the
perception therefore is "florida man" syndrome, where better reporting
confounds straight comparisons.

------
kevsim
Well, he handled that well :-)

~~~
dpbriggs
Seriously. The repeated juvenile comments attacking the person who asked for
attribution left a sour taste in my mouth.

~~~
Proven
In the comments:

"MIT doesn't explicitly require any sort of attribution."

I haven't verified that, but if that is right, the forker isn't wrong.

In that situation it is both childish and annoying to insist on attribution.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
MIT contains:

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

That sounds like requiring attribution?

EDIT: But yeah, only attribution in the actual code (and maybe binaries?
IANAL...); I wouldn't read that as requiring attribution in the readme.

------
Tepix
Oh my. He has fitting quotes on his web page:

" _How you handle criticism will define you._ "

" _If you have character, that statement will change your life. If you have no
character, you 'll remain an average complaining hater like most other
people._"

 _" A man's character is not judge by how he celebrates a victory, but by what
he does when his back is against the wall." \- John Cena_

~~~
drcongo
Careful on that site, seems to be making calls to PayPal and Stripe.

------
Bedon292
Interestingly. Neither [https://github.com/archriss/react-native-image-
gallery](https://github.com/archriss/react-native-image-gallery) nor
[https://github.com/ldn0x7dc/react-native-
gallery](https://github.com/ldn0x7dc/react-native-gallery) , which it
attributes as the original, have a license anywhere that I can find. So isn't
the default to assume all rights reserved?
[https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-
archi...](https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-
repositories/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license)

------
falcolas
I’ve thought about this quite a bit lately, and if you want attribution in
copies of your code, make it part of your license.

This guy mucked up the communication, but in the end all he really had to say
was “no”, and nobody has a right (moral or legal) to say otherwise, because
the original writers had the opportunity to require attribution and explicitly
chose not to.

~~~
augbog
It just seems barbaric and insensitive that people can be okay with not
attributing someone because they forgot a line to say or do so. At least ask
unless the person has something that explicitly says, feel free to copy my
work as your own!

This is the essence of ethics right?

------
qalmakka
This whole thing is utterly mental. I think that given that for many FOSS
development is just a non-paid hobby, a bit of self promotion can be
tolerated, but straight copying without not even a single mention of the
original creator is immoral, permissive licence or not.

------
jamil7
That was hard to read.

------
Chris2048
Would be interested in knowing why this was flagged.

------
dgb23
Is this real?

~~~
Jowsey
Certainly seems so, unfortunately.

