Hello Chris, I personally understand all the issue related if we copy something, and I understand the point of view of Justin about him point of view that we were copy a piece of code, however, our structure and the number of line have a reason to exist that is the be enable to proof the algorithm is well implemented and required some exact number of node, that is why I didn't change the number of node. In the other hand, I can make all the changes for the code looks different but I don't see the point because the element that was copied it not there any more, but if you think that we need to upload the content of the graph from a file or something similar I think it could be the best to be sure that in the code is nothing related to wikipedia issue, what do you think?
Best regards, Bertty On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:31 PM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > so I just replied sort of in your favor on the list and I hope I'll be > able to vote today or tomorrow. > > However I would like to point out a few things: > > a) Justin is generally right about what he said. > b) I think especially for a first release of an incubating project I would > have let this slip. I think the potential danger is minimal. > > However please consider: Wayang is currently in incubation. This is a > phase in whch young projects are trained to be able to do releases on their > own, while respecting the rules. > > From what I looked at: It is clear that the code for initializing the > datastructure was taken and then some node-names were updated. I mean ... > the structure of the line-lengths is just identical. Even if the graph > resulting is different, it's about the source and you can clearly see the > process, that created the results. > > So in general, this is something you should never do: Copy something from > one place and update a few variable-names, formatting whatsoever. > > I know in this case it's trivial, but still ... I would like you folks to > keep that in mind for the future. Even if some things might be common > practice in general, at Apache we are bound to applying to the rules. On > the one side this might suck and have us have to go an extra mile, but on > the other side we are therefore absulutely safe from any form of legal > attack. And our users value that by this they too are protected by this. > > Just imagine in another case, we would be confronted with a legal attack > because of this. This would result in us having to take action. Action that > results in a new release (if we are able to do so). And this will result in > our users having to adjust their soltions to this new version. We don't > want this and if this would happen too often, Apache would loose it's A++++ > credibility. > > So don't let yourself be discouraged and most of all, don't see Justin as > someone just wanting to bug you. He is a good teacher. Sometimes perhaps > not the most empathic one, but I think he's doing an outstanding job. After > all ... he found a lot of things, that I didn't see when I did my checks > and indeed - if I had seen the original ones, I probably would have reacted > similarly. > > So instead of continuing this discussion, I think it would be and would > have been a lot shorter and involved a lot less work, if we simply whiped > up a completely new (perhaps random) graph and used that instead. Then > there would have been no discussion at all. > > I mean ... this is your first release and if you address this last issue, > I think you would be able to do your first Apache release starting with the > non-WIP disclaimer. This not something every project is able to do. It's a > bit like jumping right into High-School and you should be prowd of that. > > Chris > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: bertty contreras <berttycontre...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2021 16:58 > An: dev@wayang.apache.org > Cc: Alexander Alten <a...@scalytics.io> > Betreff: Re: License discussion on incubator list > > Hi Roman, > > The original issue is that we use the image [1] as input source to perform > the test[2], however, the copied part is the transcription of the image to > the representation in the code. When Justin spot the issue with the > Wikipedia license, we change the graph and we through that changing the > graph content it was enough. Do you think we need to change the > representation or part of the code to look different from the original code? > > [1] > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank#/media/File%3APageRanks-Example.svg > > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-wayang/commit/aaa47e07d762ddc838e5ba52cc7af7727e1b821a > > > On Sun 7. Nov 2021 at 14:53, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > > Can I please get "before" and "after" picture of the offending materials? > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 1:49 PM Alexander Alten <a...@scalytics.io> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Roman, > > > > > > Can you please have a look at: > > > > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/202111.mbo > > x/browser > > > > > > and advise? > > > > > > We’d need some legal clarity, which is important for the project and > > > the > > incubation process. > > > > > > Thank you, stay safe, > > > —Alex > > >
