I think you should see something.
Like I mentioned many time before, this isn’t my first attempt at creating an aggregator. Years ago, I built something similar, and back then I drew a lot of inspiration from Postmill. This time, to avoid starting from scratch, I get some elements from my old snippets. Originally, kbin was meant to be a project just for me and a few friends, so I didn’t attribute the origin authors. That’s not an excuse, though — I should have done it right away when the project became public on git. I have a point in my roadmap called “Preparing a repository for contributors,” where I allocated a significant amount of time to educate myself about licenses, attributions, and so on. Unfortunately, everything unfolded in the wrong order.
https://codeberg.org/Kbin/kbin-core/issues/196
I think Emma is right. Since I share my small successes with you, I also want to be transparent about my failures and mistakes. I will push the proper attributions to the repository today along with some critical fixes.
To avoid reinventing the wheel, I took some code used in federation from Pixelfed as well. Essentially, there are two projects two projects will be marked. However, I have never concealed this fact:
I mean that I’m not a guy who wants to steal your code. It’s obvious that someone will take a look at the code of a project that is very similar to theirs. Sometimes, I just become terribly messy when I have to do many things at once. This lesson will definitely teach me to prioritize tasks better.
In the end, I can only promise that once everything settles down and I manage to extract a library for ActivityPub, I will revisit the Postmill repository, this time with a pull request proposal.
You should definitely check it out.
https://postmill.xyz/ - Project page
https://raddle.me/ - Postmill instance
https://pixelfed.org/ - Of course, everyone here is familiar with this one ;)
PS. the website should be running a bit faster. I will talk about it next time.
Damn emma really tore into you in that issue lol. A lot of assumptions about malicious intentions when a simple mistake seems much more likely. I mean I know they’re in the right defending their work but damn idk if they needed to make such a big public stink about it lol
It seems to me that she did it very gently ;)
Contacting the project “officially” through the the public tracker was the right thing to do.
As for the tone of the message - I don’t think it was out of line considering the circumstances.
Mistakes do happen (licensing is actually hard) - and I’m happy to see it got fixed fast.
Yeah I suppose you’re right. Just the little digs at earnest’s character seem needlessly hostile to me. like saying he edited the code to hide its origins or saying “what would your sponsors think?”
idk. just don’t like it. I do feel for them, I’m sure having your work copied without credit sucks. just wish we could all be friends and hold hands and shit:(
Which is why the tone is striking people here as over the top. Ernest is clearly not a large business trying to profit off their work so some benefit of the doubt was warranted.
Ernest corrected it and the story is over so none of this matters, but open source devs going at other devs who make a mistake with attribution just makes the ecosystem a less nice place to be. Save that hostility for the ones trying to take advantage of others
@RaleighEnt @ernest Yeah, this part - “I have never given you permission to take my work uncredited and slap your licence on it–I wonder what your sponsors would have to say about that.” - Seems unnecessarily harsh. It’s not wrong, it’s just a bit overboard. “Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance.” or however that quote goes. It’s a simple oversight.