Jesamyn, you are absolutely right. And it just needs one person who keeps pushing the copyright issue to make things difficult for others.
Mazzle, I presented my views with linked sources. You can call me names and caracterize it as "This nothing more than petty and completely inaccurate and uninformed mudslinging." all you want. I'm sure people can make up their mind, when they are actually given all the information and not oddly twisted hearsay arguments such as this:
Benumbed is not entitled to any protection of the project whatsoever, regardless of whether he added features.
You make further odd claims. You have the right to report copyright infringement and demand that if it's found it be removed from a site. You do however have no right to demand any punative action of any kind from the site admins, certainly nothing in copyright law that I know supports your demand for a ban.
I can fully support that any revision before R62912 be pulled from the SVN. That was the WoWInterface position and it makes sense. That is a demand that is in tune with copyright law without question. That you demand that a source code file that contains 0 lines of code is derived work from yours is just twisted and a frivolous claim tbh. I doubt that WoWInterface or any addon site would uphold that claim. That's the position Kaelten is in.
And you call people who stand up to your demands with linked sources that support the arguments people who lack intellectual integrity all you want. Sure thing! Slap me with another one of those. Let me know if you need a list of viable ad hominems, I can give you a few that are sure to hurt me. I'm scared, honest.
Greg writes - describing the response of people to it:
The Mazzlegasm refers to his mod auto-sending a "/yell" in game after completing the setup of MazzleUI which read, "I just had a Mazzlegasm!" It was a cheap throwaway joke, sure, but some humorless people didn't take it well. The ethics of an addon performing an action on behalf of an unaware user was questioned, as well as inane parental complaints that "Mazzlegasm" sounded a little too close to "orgasm" for their young child's fragile ears.
After he put so much into the compilation, Mazzlefizz felt betrayed by the community. It wasn't pleasant having such a small issue be the most discussed portion of MazzleUI.
No actual critic of the mazzlegasm is interviewed or voiced in the piece.
So not only does Greg take side on the issue and dismisses critics of the mazzlegasm as "humorless" and "inane", he doesn't give both sides (for contemporary "humorless" folks check this http://www.wowinsider.com/2008/06/05/mazzleui-updated-for-2-4/, Eliah Hecht clearly is such a "stuck-up" :P). Even more he proceeds to leave out that Mazzle of course created the whole issue. Had there been a choice from the user side there would have been no issue and no streams of complaint and nothing to in turn annoy Mazzle. Also leaving out that Mazzle had used copyright arguments to stop people from patching out the mazzlegasm that was causing issues (see e.g. Tobold http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2007/02/mazzleui-avoiding-mazzlegasm.html). It took intervention from Blizzard to actually get Mazzle to add the switch that people wanted (http://www.wowinterface.com/forums/showpost.php?p=45624&postcount=140) because Mazzle insisted that he had the right to impose his particular view what was appropriate on everybody and force a take-or-leave it attitude through copyright arguments.
Mazzle could have prevented "feeling betrayed by the community" by simply not making an elefant out of a tiny thing. Add the switch and complaints stop. But no, he had to aggravate a trivial issue by taking a hard-nosed stance and even pressuring others who tried to offer third-party outs via wielding the copyright as weapon. The Mazzlegasm was not a good example how inconsiderate users are of addon authors... it was more one of the most extreme examples I know how inconsiderate addon authors can be of their users, requiring Blizzard intervention to change course.
Oddly enough Greg's piece dated May 07, hence three months after Blizz intervened does not even mention this. Why Greg Tito engages in this type of one-sided and shotty reporting is not clear to me. Maybe he just trusts Mazzle's opinion without doing independent research? By that time a lot of opinions on the situation were plainly available. And just some research would have revealed that Mazzle wasn't just a victim to annoying addon users, as the piece ended up portraying.
People who want to review DaPortrait, I encourage them to check out http://fish.wowace.com/browse/WowAce/trunk/DaPortrait/. You will find that constants.lua was completely pulled and completely replaced (following the demand Mazzle places on new work). Also core.lua and DaPortrait.lua saw substantial rewriting in two patches between February 26 and March 3. Don't trust me, do your own diffs. My personal view is that indeed DaPortrait doesn't have much of a trace of it's pre-February 26 state right now and except for some frame handling code is a rewrite, that however was not completely pulled and recommitted, but rewritten and committed in 2 stages over 4 days or so. To pull DaPortrait now would mean forcing major work by the author offline simply due to its history and I agree with Kaelten that a new upload with this source code would not really stand a derivative claim to Mazzle's code. If the pull-because-of-history demand is sensible, I cannot tell (despite Mazzle's vehement claims that it's obvious his claim is right). But that's next on my list to research. I have my personal views but unlike Mazzle I'm not gonna pass them off as facts.
Unlike Greg it may be worthwhile to actually research the viability of Mazzle's claims and it's actual impact on the addon author community before putting out stuff and calling people thiefs and blackpaint admins. I for one would have told him that I disagree with Mazzle's stance, for at least two reasons, one legal and one communal.
Let me put out a somewhat radical claim for a second: Benumbed work deserves protection just as much as Mazzles. If Benumbed has done substantial new work we ought to consider his rights as much as anybody else. For example Benumbed's constants.lua R 63115 or later is original work and deserve full protection without reservation. It's a fresh commit from an erase at the previous revision. But some here are busy pre-judging Benumbed as thief, rather than take a more benign possibility, namely that he acted naively and meant no malice and on top of it has done original work. Mazzle does not have the right to bully Benumbed's or anybody's original work out of existence. He has the right to protect his original work.
Furthermore let me make another not so radical claim that Kaelten has indicated before: Software writing is very frequently if not almost inherently derivative. Brian Kernighan could call me plagerizer and thief because I modified Hello World from his C book without asking his permission first. Luckily Brian is a great and lovely and sane guy... And certainly he'd have the grace to ask me if I wanted a Kernihug before forcing it on me and everybody, rather than claiming he has the right, I shouldn't socialize with him if I don't accept that and people are bad sport if they don't. And certainly he won't take extreme stances on copyright to pressure others.
To give my view on Xin's questions:
- I for one see that Benumbed didn't ask for permission and was rebuffed when he asked post-hoc. I can see that Mazzle can ask for an apology for that but that is a personal matter not something I personally like to see dragged into the public. He did immediately work on a rewrite as is evident from fisheye. For me that means he acted immediately and in rather sensible faith to the rebuff. I.e. he did not intent to continue using Mazzle's code without permission when it was actively withheld. Certainly I cannot detect from the code history any evidence of contempt for Mazzle's request this his withholding of permission be honored. Mazzle is still running around and calling Benumbed a thief. I can't say that I find that appropriate given the code changes. It smells of character assassination, but oh well.
- As for Kaelten, I see him acting in good faith. I see nothing where he acted questionably. Asking him to apologize is silly. He has the rights of all authors to consider, not just those of Mazzle, so he can't just say yes to everything one author demands. I in fact applaud him for having the guts to not blindly follow the obvious pressures that Mazzle created on the issue. Again at least that article does smell like a hit piece on Kaelten, which I cannot find appropriate given Kaelten's actions.
- As for pulling DaPortrait, I can see that only for core.lua which contains some traces of frame code that predate February 26. Anything else really is original work by Benumbed as I see it inspecting fisheye diffs and MazzModels.lua and Mazz3D_DBF.lua. Replacing the piece of core.lua which isn't original with original code is trivial, easily done in a day. Even if replaced it can be charged as derivative as frame code can only be so varied, but there are many addons that create frames for 3d model views. It's an idle exercise but if Mazzle absolutely insists, it can be done. DaPortrait in its current form is not an uncredited copy of Mazzle code and to characterize it as such is disingenuous.
- Mazzle really could use some letting go of stuff. Really this is a matter practically resolved on a code-level at the end of February and it's now dragged around still at the end of July. As I see it mostly because of personal beef against Benumbed and resentment that others don't carry out punative moves without reservations. I think that's just going a little bit too far.
But as we heard in Greg's article poor victimized authors have no reprieve... simply a form of reprieve was given (code rewrite) but not acknowledged, so one can keep on going on the beef for months and see oneself as victim.
But calling people thieves is more flashy than trying to actually resolve misunderstandings. Just like calling addon users betrayers may be more flashy than just quietly adding a switch option and keep them sensibly happy.
Asking if any of us is a lawyer is an underhanded attempt to remove credibility because we aren't "authorities."
Nah not really. Really you interpret it as an underhanded attempt to do that, but there are multiple interpretations, for example one that simply asks: "Who has information that can settle this for us." A qualified lawyer isn't a horrible source to consider for this.
See I observe a conversation of two people debating airtravel and they use physical law in their argument. To resolve the argument I need knowledge to settle it. If neither of the debater provides tangible evidence, asking for people who have tangible evidence (like asking for a professionally trained physicist who is expert of the physical law in question) is not invalidating the perspectives of the debaters, but rather asks for evidence.
Look, this thread contains many claims re what is or is not the legal situation. To ask if anybody is an actual expert on this is not a fallacy in and of itself.
E.g. if you could quote cases or law paragraph that settle an argument, you don't need to be lawyer to do that. Just being a lawyer specializing in copyright law makes it more likely that you have that knowledge and can in fact settle the argument, but you still may not. In neither case is it your position ("authority") that resolves the question, rather the facts provided. Authority can be legit if it lead to the facts, not by itself. That's the difference between an authority fallacy and a proper resolution of an argument.
If a lawyer walked in here and said "x is true because I said so", it'd be a fallacy.
I know I'm totally off-topic, but anyway. One of my favorite resource on discourse theory is: "A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach" by Eemeren & Grootendorst, Cambridge University Press, 2003, which contains a good discussion on fallacies. For the more ad-hominem type and unfair argument styles read Schopenhauer's hilarous writing on the matter, just promise me to not use it on others :P
Finally: "Your attitude seems to stem more from a lack of self esteem than anything." is a rhetorical fallacy too... don't second-guess other people's intentions or esteem. It's personal and hence ad hominem. Bam's self-esteem is fine as I see it. ;)
I.e. you appeal to an authority as if appealing to that authority made the statement true. However statements are true or false independent of what a perceived authority says.
Rather there was a request for qualification, which is valid and not a fallacy. A qualified (and yes there are poor ones too) lawyer could point to prior cases, law paragraph etc. Knowledge and experience is relevant in an argument and not a rethorical fallacy. Statements are still true or false independent, but reference to actual facts (prior cases, law paragraphs) are evidence that is tangible in evaluating statements. :P
@tek: You know what I actually hate that "I can play that way stance". I wish people would just stop playing that way period. I'm reverting it. Let MazzleUI use Recount. I disagree with the personal matters between kaelten and Cog being laundered in public but as I said before that's none of my business so I'll shut up about it. That's why I requested the lock, but it seems like its being resolved through the appropriate (i.e. PM) channels already.
Thanks, I'll be taking it to Cairenn, Mazzlefizz and docevl.
Clad: Why you come here mudslinging and railing I don't understand, but really it seems that Kaelten and you guys need to have a personal chat, and a valium. It really isn't my business... and maybe not even yours.
Cog, didn't you say you were going to defend my rights?
Clad, my request has been made in public. Law does not mandate that I have to go through your processes. All relevant information has been stated. I have stated the facts as I see it and asked you to act. You can decide to not act. That's yours.
Cog: Mazz is wasting our time, because we now redo what he has done and is unwilling to share, and he could have saved our time by just being more inclusive. Yes he has the right to not be inclusive but hey. People who solely insist on their rights rather than look what's good for the community, are pretty much what defines a dick really. He absolutely has the full right to be a dick. That's how the system works. We may have the responsibility to take care of the community even if he doesn't share that responsibility be crying for his rights. I'm not saying Mazz has no rights at all, he also has however the right to be a more helpful person to the community. Mazz is control-freaking us again, just like the silly mazzlegasm situation. Yeah he had the right to insist on it until pressure was such that he had to change. Give that I don't expect him to take a helpful stance and it's a crying shame. That's all I have to say about Mazz really. All this is unproductive, it's been unproductive since february it seems.
Yeah I think it's time for SharedMedia_PortraitCoords.
And yeah lets withdraw our permission to have our addons used in MazzleUI. We have the "right" to do that if we see others as not contributing to the community and not asking permission either. Mazzle/docevl have not asked me for permission to include Recount for the record. And I'll make plain now that they do not have that permission.
So Cog are you going to defend my rights as much as you defend Mazzle's?
OK so reading this article, every party tries to mediate and Mazz is being a dick. It may be time for the community to manually reconstruct the database and recover DaPortrait that way. Because essentially that's what Mazz demands. Redo my work, because I'm not willing to share.
Mazz was an idiot back when it was about a switch for Mazzlegasm. A sensible person would have added the switch and that would be it. But no, Mazzlegasm was a whole long ordeal working against Mazz's bonehead and it needed Blizz to intervene to get him to his senses. But now he's just pissing in every corner rather than trying to find a common solution.
Maybe all addon authors that have addons used and modified in MazzleUI withdrawn their permission of use until the matter is resolved? I for one am tempted to withdraw that permission to use a post 2.3 Recount in MazzleUI.
Who in fact got asked by Mazzle if it's OK for him to modify their addons for his UI? Mazz is throwing stones standing in a glass house and it seems he isn't even getting it.
That seems to be the mode of operation Mazzle advocates. The real problem is that he advocates that position and isn't working with others to find common ground (again, mazzlegasms reloaded).
And Clad, why you are targeting Kaelten, when many parties have tried to take a mediating position is beyond me.
But Mazz doesn't mediate so there are really two things one can do in an adversarial situation like this:
1) Ask Mazzle to remove your addon from MazzleUI if he hasn't asked permission and was granted it. If he has modified your addon ask that any version of MazzleUI be removed from the addon site that contains your modified addon because of CR IP infringement.
This essentially means that we as community withdrawn from Mazz the benefits that he himself refuses to extend to others.
2) Join the OpenPortrait project to help measure out the data ourselves and make it public domain.
This is to acknowledge that he can in fact block access to his stuff, but not let him control what's out there. If we have a public domain copy he may charge that it's stlll derivative, but there is no CR argument for it anymore, simply because portrait coords existed before MazzleUI.
Mazzle is wasting our time. I guess he got that one covered.
What Mazzle doesn't get is that the UI community is symbiotic. MazzleUI wouldn't exist without the good will and work of other addon authors. So some sort of good will from his end would be a sensible position.