Ask HN: A better known dev reimplemented my open source repo. What should I do?

[thatguysaguy]

Mid last year, I put up a library which enables some new functionality for an ML framework. I had discussions with this developer in the comments at the time. Rather than making PRs or feature requests, he reimplemented it from scratch, and gave it a nearly identical name. Let's say mine was called "Foo" and his was named "Fooo".

I didn't think that much of it at the time, but now he's on Twitter promoting it, without any mention of my work. I'd understand it more if he was changing the API significantly, but currently they're nearly identical.

The bottom of the README on his says "inspired by <my repo>", but that is quite the understatement. Is the only thing to do just ignore it and keep working on my version? I don't have a ton of open source experience, so I could use some advice on navigating this.

[brodouevencode]

This will happen in OSS with the right license. You have three options from what I can tell: 1) ask nicely to give you what you deem to be the appropriate amount of credit 2) deal with it 3) make your library better than theirs. To live by the essence of OSS would be to do number 3.

[dyingkneepad]

I understand your feelings, but I think doing anything would actually look bad for you, exactly because the type of feelings you're having. This is how open source works, he even credited you. Deal with it. Make your thing better. Promote your thing on Twitter too. Change the license of your next thing if you don't want to give people certain freedoms.

[carlosjobim]

You can only blame yourself for choosing to go open source. Likewise if you stand on the street corner and hand out free stuff as much as anybody likes to take, people will show up and take as much they can and start selling it. Going open source is an open invitation to other people to leech on you.

There's nothing you can do about that guy. I hope you learned your lesson and stay away from the endless cycle of misery that is open source. Why not sell your software to honest people who want to pay you for honest work? Instead of festering in a pit full of leeches.

[austin-cheney]

Make the superior product and be the authority. You can stop working on it or you can add superior capabilities they cannot. If this product is something both you and your users are really passionate about there will be a feedback loop. Let that feedback loop determine how to drive the product forward. When that feedback loop winds down it might be time to move on.

[codegeek]

Message him on twitter and ask him to credit you more openly than sticking it in readme at the bottom which most likely is not read by most people. If he doesn't, reply to this twitter post adding your own comment. Legally, he may be ok if MIT license but ethically, he should credit you more than just sneaking in a readme fine print.

[thatguysaguy → codegeek]

Done already, thanks

[fargle]

when you open-source something, with any reasonable OSS license, you are placing it out there freely. not just free to people to use as in cost, but free for them to do mostly anything with it.

if you expect to be paid in gratis, fame, recognition, etc. you are frankly barking up the wrong tree. you are neither required, expected, or have any obligation to support it but, flip-side, you have no right - morally or otherwise -- to complain about it or control it either.

if you used copyright and a good license, you can't "rip off" the code without at least keeping the copyright and notices intact, which i'm sure is all fine or you'd have a real cause.

promoting your work on twitter as his is maybe disingenuous, but people are free to be assholes.

if you want your thing to be the dominant popular thing, it better be the best. if your thing was better than his thing in some way by a sufficient margin, including promotion, then it would dominate.

and we're still back to: "and why do you care?" move on and make something else or make it better.

(hey to all the downvoters! - guess what - I don't care. i find the idea that people think that they can open-source stuff and then still control it to be obnoxious)

[k8svet → fargle]

Its so clear some folks are not in oss for the best reasons sometimes. All the self promo without any of the altruism.

[sandwichbop]

The developer did nothing wrong, reimplemented it from scratch and gave you a mention in the original readme. If anything this happens all the time like Oracle v Google. What you do now is create something even better (and keep it closed source) but he is not required to do anything

[uraji]

dont see the problem here. you should be happy that your work inspired someone! and you got credit for it!

[_kwef → uraji]

I don't think legally the other developer is in the wrong but it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

[mtmail]

Which license did the original license use? With MIT for example that would be acceptable https://opensource.org/license/MIT/ (of course not nice and questionable on ethics).

[thatguysaguy → mtmail]

MIT yeah, I should have mentioned. I wasn't trying to say anything illegal was going on.

[mtmail → thatguysaguy]

Just yesterday I saw a project posted (Show HN I think) that turned out to be a copy of somebody elses. In the source there was still a link but on the website the author name was changed. Plus monetization links. I hope that doesn't catch on, I have a couple of MIT projects myself.

[throwaway167]

If it's something your proud of having done, perhaps buy the <library name>.com or <>.io or whatever.

Also, while the code is under an MIT license, is the name or brand?

[KomoD]

He did nothing wrong

> without any mention of my work

He's not obligated to, and he did already credit you in the README as you said yourself.

[joshxyz]

you are in the oss market lol, that's how it goes here.

i think we differ a lot on this, but to me i see it as a massive compliment for someone to build something on top of your work.