https://github.com/cryptocat/cryptocat/commits/legacy/spec/mpOTR.txt
On Thursday, 14 February, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Meredith L. Patterson > <clonea...@gmail.com (mailto:clonea...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > would prefer to see it dealt > > with right here where you brought it up by failing to properly credit > > Nadim's work. > > > > > When Nadim posted, I responded off-list because I believe this drama > has no place for otr-dev. > > I responded to him with my email records showing that the document > existing in April 2013— long prior to the history reflected on the > wikipage (which appears to indicate that Nadim is the sole author of > the text), and the commentary from my email records indicated that at > the time I believed Jake to be a joint author of the document. The > MP-OTR spec (being discussed, not the document you linked to) provides > no attribution to anyone except Nadim, although I was certain that > this wasn't the case. > > In response Nadim confirmed my understanding. Apparently the true > history of the document was lost when it was moved from git into the > cryptocat wiki at some point, similarly to how Jake's fork doesn't > include the history from the current cryptocat wiki (which includes a > relatively modest amount of changes on the original document). Nadim > further went on to claim "[Jake's] contributions to this document were > done with him being part of the Cryptocat team at the WSJ hack-a-thon > and thus this document belongs to the Cryptocat Project.". This > theory of ownership may explain Nadim's failure to acknoweldge Jake's > authorship— but it is not a sound theory, legally or ethically as I'm > sure you would agree. > > My own view is: > * This is foolish drama which has no place on this list > * The reputation attacks are unjustified and unfortunate. > * This is foolish drama which has no place on this list > * By failing to at all acknowledge Jake's joint authorship of the > document in his public accusation of plagiarism Nadim misrepresented > the situation. > * This is foolish drama which has no place on this list > * Now that everyone is convinced everyone else is acting in bad faith > the simple polite off-list resolution of this drama which should have > been used is now not working. > * This is foolish drama which has no place on this list > * This is all over a rather insignificant incomplete protocol > specification for a protocol that was really designed by none of the > people involved in this discussion. Who is the author of those couple > hundred lines of prose is not very important... what is important is > that someone get around to finishing it and implementing it. > * This is foolish drama which has no place on this list > > In spite of this being foolish drama which has no place on this list, > I now feel ethically obligated to comment in order to speak out in > defense of Jake and to point out the factual inaccuracies which appear > to have inspired your comments. As a penance for my contribution to > this mess by responding in public I will be donating to one of the tor > server hosting projects. > > I beg everyone to just add a bunch of attributions to all the copies > of the document (which would be easier if the original history weren't > apparently lost) and move on with life. > _______________________________________________ > OTR-dev mailing list > OTR-dev@lists.cypherpunks.ca (mailto:OTR-dev@lists.cypherpunks.ca) > http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list OTR-dev@lists.cypherpunks.ca http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
