[jillyboel]

Since y'all decided to flag my other comment I'll rephrase: Can someone explain what harm is being done by an open source non-commercial project "stealing" code? Who is actually hurt by this, and how?

Let's ignore for the moment nothing was actually stolen since the original authors still have their copies.

[jchw]

Call it what you want, but it's just disrespectful and unnecessary. I'm sure we've all fucked up somewhere and didn't attribute something correctly, but I feel like once it's been brought to your attention, it's just silly to not at least acknowledge it (especially if people are paying you to work on it). In this case, it's a somewhat serious licensing issue even if it is unlikely to lead to any actual legal action.

Stolen valor isn't really literal theft either, but that doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

[jillyboel]

Okay, sure. But the question is what harm is being done. Am I understanding you correctly that your answer is that there is none?

[saagarjha]

Would you accept any definition of harm short of money being lost or someone beating you with a club?

[jillyboel]

So far I'm just waiting for any definition.

[saagarjha]

You got examples and didn't like them. That's fine, that just means people won't indulge you anymore.

[jillyboel]

Can you clarify what examples of harm have been provided? Disrespecting someone is not harming them, if that is what you're getting at? Your comment is quite disrespectful towards my genuine question which you refuse to answer, and yet, I am not harmed. In fact, I am amused, since it's clear you don't have a real answer and are just resorting to ad hominem attacks instead.

[jchw]

I'm more curious what your definition of harm is.

(To be clear, this is a completely pointless tangent, "harm" has nothing to do with whether or not you should condone plagiarism. But you seem rather interested in discussing it, so I am kind of curious what answer you're actually looking for.)

[jillyboel]

I'm specifically asking you (and other HNers) what definition of harm you think applies here. I'm still waiting.

As for not condoning plagiarism, grow up. We're not kids in school anymore. You're (hopefully) an adult who graduated already.

If you're so against plagiarism, how do you feel about LLMs plagiarizing the whole internet? Didn't all the techbros collectively decide for us that this is the future we want?

[iczero]

Your code is my code actually. I wrote all of it. Where's the harm?

[jillyboel]

have fun

[bogwog]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but people still say it is in casual conversation. Either way, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

> Can someone explain what harm is being done by an open source non-commercial project "stealing" code? Who is actually hurt by this, and how?

It's an accusation of plagiarism. Do you not understand why plagiarism causes harm?

[1970-01-01]

You have a great point. I'm finding it hard to determine that actual harm has occurred here. The problem can be corrected, and the hbc project can still meet the requirements and spirit of open source. But neither fail0verflow nor libogc seem to care about any of this, and instead everything was frozen. You don't need permission to use open source code.. So there appears to be two double standards occurring at once. This story is weird.

>The current developers of libogc are not interested in tracking this issue, finding a solution, nor informing the community of the problematic copyright status of the project. When we filed an issue about it, they immediately closed it, replied with verbal abuse, and then completely deleted it from public view.

>For this reason, we consider it impossible to legally and legitimately compile this software at this point, and cannot encourage any further development.

>fail0verflow.com: "when success just isn't an option"

>https://github.com/atgreen/RTEMS?tab=License-1-ov-file

[jchw]

> I'm finding it hard to determine that actual harm has occurred here. [...]. But neither fail0verflow nor RTEMS seem to care about any of this.

? There isn't really any evidence that the original RTEMS developers are aware of this situation.

> You don't need permission to use open source code..

"Open source" on its own is just industry jargon. When you use open source code, you are copying it in accordance with an open source copyright license. The copyright license contains certain stipulations around how it is allowed to be used. For example, BSD licenses require that the copyright notice is included when using the code. IANAL but my understanding is if you omit this information even though your work is a derivative work of the original you're in violation of the copyright license.

> So there appears to be two double standards occurring at once.

You should really elaborate who is being held to what standards because I can't make sense of this.

[1970-01-01]

The point is that nobody is being held to anything. Who will make a case in court? There is nobody to enforce the law, and if there was someone, it can be easily corrected by including these license files. Therefore nothing is blocking either project.

[jchw]

> The point is that nobody is being held to anything. Who will make a case in court? There is nobody to enforce the law, [...]

Lawsuits are very expensive for all parties no matter what, there is clearly no intent to try to engage legal action. That has nothing to do with anything. They're trying to distance themselves from illicit behavior, including the behavior they already knew about and let slide in 2007.

(And I doubt it's being done for legal reasons, but distancing yourself from illicit behavior does matter; take a look at what happened with Citra. The case partially hinged on their responses to piracy.)

> It can be easily corrected by including these license files. Therefore nothing is blocking either project.

Tell that to the libogc developers who seem to only be interested in burying the problem rather than trying to rectify it in any way.

[1970-01-01]

These points don't seem to be an argument that harm has occurred.

[jchw]

What is harm? Does infringing someone's copyrights not count?