Heya, Just my take on it - Justin has of course a good point here. What if we simply create an random graph with a picture we did? Than we have this issue solved and all other releases will be clean.
What so you think folks? Cheers, --alex On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 19:37 Bertty Contreras <ber...@scalytics.io> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
