Thread on the recent drama:
At the end of the day, it's not about who copied who. It's about taking and using the ideas of some other library (which also is published paper), without giving the proper attribution in your GitHub or documentation, which gets the most traffic. 1/7
At the end of the day, it's not about who copied who. It's about taking and using the ideas of some other library (which also is published paper), without giving the proper attribution in your GitHub or documentation, which gets the most traffic. 1/7
And don't even *try* to claim to do something revolutionary, when in reality it's something others have taken months and years to build, and you’re simply taking notes (or more). 2/7
Open source frameworks and the evolution of these libraries build upon each other. That’s the definition of a community. You look at what’s being used, where their weakness are, their strengths, and you start tweaking. 3/7
Eventually you come up with something fresh and new that looks very different than the old. But you *still* started from somewhere, and as a software developer you have an obligation to let the world know where that starting place was 4/7
(especially when 99% of your current API is based heavily on some other library)
Which again, in of itself is fine, so long as *proper attribution is met*. Non-ethical practices like what I’ve seen in the last few days really puts a bad taste in my mouth being an open-source developer. 5/7
Why should I live in fear of writing a library, it becoming popular in a community, and then a few months later a larger corporation steals that idea and claims I copied them? That’s wrong, on all levels. 6/7
What I’m really asking is just be open about where your ideas come from, and too much attribution can *never* do you wrong. If anything, it can be seen as a strength. 7/7
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
