[masklinn]

Except essentially none of the statement takes issue with the forking itself.

In fact the author of the statement is active in this very thread and specifically notes that this is very much allowed and is not what they take issue with.

[falcolas]

Other than encouraging Japanese users to use Zig instead of Zen, that is.

The fact that most of the message was pointing out how poor the character of the Zen authors is doesn't feel good to me, no matter whether the allegations are true or not. It's an appeal to our sense of fairness, "Look at these big bad guys who are profiting off our work".

And yet it's really the only argument that could be made by the Zig author.

[masklinn]

> Other than encouraging Japanese users to use Zig instead of Zen, that is.

They're not encouraging users to use zig instead of zen because zen is a private fork, they're discouraging users from using zen because it is zen.

> The fact that most of the message was pointing out how poor the character of the Zen authors is doesn't feel good to me

Most of the statement has to do with Zen's dubious relationship with the truth (with the lack of significant value despite lofty claims being but one of the examples thereof).

The statement also doesn't point out the poor character of Zen's creator but their poor behaviour. You can infer poor character from poor behaviour but that is not what is pointed out in the statement.

> It's an appeal to our sense of fairness, "Look at these big bad guys who are profiting off our work".

You may want to re-read the statement if that's what you got from it.

[falcolas]

> they're discouraging users from using zen because it is zen.

And I quote: "we invite all Japanese developers ... to join the global Zig community and enjoy the real deal, without having to pay a single Yen for the privilege."

> doesn't point out the poor character of Zen's creator but their poor behaviour

Potato, tomato. You're correct that the specifics are different, yet the underlying message is the same: "these guys are bad, come over to Zig".

[hitekker]

It’s perfectly reasonable for an Open Source software foundation to point out how a private company is misusing their software and misappropriating their brand.

Saying that Zig’s creators should sit down and be quiet sounds both condescending and craven.

[falcolas]

No, Zig's creators putting up a stink about a for-profit fork (a developer IP assignment clause, how.. actually quite common, come to think of it) sounds like they made a decision that they now regret, and so they'll use whatever tactics they can to pull people off the fork.

And lay off the personal attack, 'k?

[scythe]

>a developer IP assignment clause, how.. actually quite common

It is absolutely not normal to demand copyright for code written by a developer in off-hours. It is extremely not normal to write non-compete clauses for software developers and the ban on non-compete clauses in California has been cited as a key policy promoting the growth of the software industry. And it is obviously adversarial to fork a project and then try to get developers on the project to sign non-competes saying they will not work on the project.

[sigzero]

They don't have a problem with the fork. They have a problem with the ethics of the Zen people and they pointed that out and rightfully so.

[drcode]

It's fine for Zen to fork the Zig code. It's not fine for Zen to claim authorship of code that was written by someone else (such as the async/await code)

[coldtea]

>It's an appeal to our sense of fairness, "Look at these big bad guys who are profiting off our work".

When did fairness go out of fashion?

[falcolas]

Fairness could also apply to someone taking advantage of the decision to use an MIT license, only to be publicly lambasted. Is that fair?

[coldtea]

If he's being a dick about it (e.g. splitting the community, attempting to take credit, trying to register the trademark for a name it's not his, etc), then yes.