nanocolors

I reached out to him when I could've filed a takedown notice instead. Later, after the tweets, I even asked him to shake hands on the whole thing[1][2][3], but he was already sunk-cost-mode on and determined to die on a stupid hill. Only because I called him out is that we were able to had my git history restored and copyright attributed. > Their attitude since then has left a lot to be desired. That refers to the forker's attitude following the tweets[4][5]. [1]: https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927757... [2]: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/56996/135221889-52... [3]: https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1442055448899641348 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28661094 [5]: https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78

> We probably can multiply how much time has wasted from 15 millions run per day. It matters collectively. The benchmark measurements they're discussing are on the order of tens-of-millions of operations per second: https://github.com/ai/nanocolors#benchmarks Are the contents of your terminal changing that frequently?

> The absolutely crazy thing is the person who caused this doesn't think they did anything wrong. And now he's saying this of the person he took the work from [1]: 1. "I believe he is a good person, but love colorette too much and prefer impulsive actions ... Impulsive behavior can be very dangerous." 2. "Comments like this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28662796] shows that his behavior in that case was very questionable. Seems like he is systematically put himself in conflicts." True or not, I find his claims of the victim having impulsive or questionable behavior, and systematically creating conflicts, ironic. On a more positive note - it looks like both parties are starting to discuss a resolution [1]; maybe even co-maintainership of the original work in question [2]. I personally think that would take a lot of guts, from both

Which is nowhere near no_wizard's point. And nowhere near what you've done. Gorge Bucaran, author of Colorette, summarizes your actions here https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927134...: "Colorette isn't some obscure project either. It is well used. Now imagine I find a project that meets that description. Clone it. Erase the .git directory. Initialize a new repository. Make a few extraneous changes. Incorrectly benchmark it. Falsely claim improved performance. Tweak the docs. Change the name. Add a logo. Start aggressively promoting it and sending PRs to high-profile projects while leveraging a non-trivial social media following. I'm not against forking a project and adding new value to it. I encourage that. But that's not what's going on here. This is the collector getting away with a new piece for their collection."

I completely agree with it. This is why I used Colorette for a year, promote it and send PRs there. https://twitter.com/sitnikcode/status/1441824191624486924 For for created because Colorette changed API and author didn’t want to change it back. The reasons of fork is clearly desrcibed in project’s docs https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes I mentioned Colorette in Nano Colors docs, COPYRIGHT and keep the origin history. But when Colorette author backported my performance optimizations he refuses to do the same in return.

I mentioned him in docs, COPYRIGHT and keep the origin history? I clearly explain the reasons of fork creation and the changes https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes What “fork rules” did I violate?

the mantion of colorette is on top of Nano Colors docs with clear list of why fork was created and the changes https://github.com/ai/nanocolors#nano-colors

It's literally atributed in the readme file https://github.com/ai/nanocolors

They aren’t using the commit you referenced. Instead they went down this path where there is one license, with one copyright (new author), but they are citing the other work in the copyrights: https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/15/commits/182c767583b...

He does seem very aggressive in his attempts to get this into as many popular packages (and/or onto as many machines) as he can in the shortest amount of time. According to the original project's author, he even silently removed loads of edge case handlers until he was called out on it [0]. That seems to have been a really quick and dirty tactic to get his performance numbers up. My spidey senses are tingling too. [0] https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927152...

I'm losing my mind with people who keep replying with "That's open source baby! Don't make it open source if you don't like!" The problem with this behavior is as follows: - The MIT license requires attribution of the original work. The author contacted the person who forked this privately [1]. It wasn't done until the Twitter thread. - Questionably the fork was renamed and didn't include git history to make the first point even worse. Git history was only rebased in after the Twitter thread [2]. 1 - https://twitter.com/DerianAndre/status/1441851684095811585 2 - https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/commits/main?after=566a49b0...

He literally took his project and branded as his. https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/commits/main?after=566a49b0... Disgusting.

Agreed. It's like this person's fan club is out in full force to defend their honor. Impossible to see this as anything other than both unethical and a violation of the MIT license. The issue only being resolved [1] when public shame was involved should close this case. 1 - https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/blob/main/COPYRIGHT#L1-L3

It's literally three lines of actual content. It would not take you long to read it. The MIT License (MIT) Copyright © 2021 <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY

See also https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14