|
|
|
|
|
|
by detaro
1728 days ago
|
|
|
> Why? Colorette clearly copies that line from nanocolors, no? And he copied the entire source code earlier and didn't mind hiding who wrote that? But now suddenly a tiny fix (which might be tiny and obvious enough to not even meet any copyright standard, although that's always vague and difficult) is worthy of demanding attribution for? That's really not the moment to go nitpicking the other guy. (Would a mention in the commit message have been really good style anyways? yes.) |
|
|
I agree with you here, but aren't we talking about something else?
> But now suddenly a tiny fix
It's an impactful fix. Now colorette can claim that there's no performance difference between colorette and nanocolors.
If this fix wasn't there, colorette would be objectively slower than nanocolors.
If I am the user, I will choose the one that is faster, so this is an important improvement.
> is worthy of demanding attribution for?
Yes. Are you against both attributing each other accurately?
Nanocolors currently attributes colorette for the whole fork (albeit after being called out).
Colorette still refuses to attribute nanocolors specifically for this important performance improvement, even after being called out.
> That's really not the moment to go nitpicking the other guy.
Why not? The current topic is about improper attribution.
It's fair to look at improper attribution on both sides, not just one side.