HN Explorer

4 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 21.5 ms ] thread
twunde
Honestly, things like this make me avoid using github just because of the amount of drama involved. By open sourcing projects you are effectively saying that this code is free to use however you feel fit. Yes they should have fully attributed their source. Yes, they should have sent a pull request for their fixes. But is it really that big a deal?
Throwadev
I'm not involved but I wanted to see what discussion might come of it. I see where the fluent-cassandra guys are coming from but I also agree with your point. I'm new to open source and I personally didn't know people took this stuff as seriously as the fluent-cassandra devs do. I always figured if you contribute back you are one of the few who do things the right way.

When the Datastax guys dumped their code the way they did though, it uppped the drama factor a bit.

NeutronBoy
The last comment on that issue [1] is disgraceful. 'I kept the issue open to let you guys sweat it out until the end of the week'? Really? They submitted their code, just liked you asked. If it's not up to your own standards, then fix it! If that's what they use, then I don't see why they need to invest more time in it. Sure, it's not in the spirit of open source, but at the very least it looks like they have acknowledged where they were required to.

[1] https://github.com/managedfusion/fluentcassandra/issues/114#...

cmwelsh
Part of open source is realizing people will steal your code. The only thing you can do is expect them to give the legally mandated minimum of an acknowledgement of copyright and authorship in alignment with the terms of the MIT license.

Are they good neighbors? No. Are they breaking the law? Only if they refuse to include an acknowledgement of your copyright in accordance with the license you gave them.