Good practice about other's code updates or re-use?

[JnLlnd]

I'm new to open source and collaborative programming and I'd like to have your advice on Do and Don'ts about publishing changes or addition to other forum user's code.

I believe it is better to have the OK from the original script's author before publishing fixes, changes or additions to his script. But what if the author is inactive or do not follow up* to bugs reports or suggestions posted to the forum? (*with probably good reasons, this is absolutely not a criticism)

On another note, what about writing from scratch a new script based on the concept of an existing script published on this forum? The new script would add new features and could be maintained by the programmers interested in its evolution. Is a credit to the original author (kind of "original concept by X") sufficient to give someone the right to create this new script?

Thanks for your input.

[jethrow]

That's the great thing about open source & posting code - it's there for everyone. Sure, it's proper to give credit where credit is due, but if you don't want other's to use your code - don't post it.

For instance - I typically get credit for the IEGet function. That function is based on code I got from tank. tank got it from Sean. Sean prolly got it from Microsoft or something. So, who should get credit?

And yes - I'm definitely a proponent of understanding code concepts ... then you can write your own version of the code. On the other hand, if you're going to take over an inactive project, or create your on fork of a specific project, it's a good idea to document the source. For instance, look at AHK. Chris was the original author, but Lexikos started developing his own version. That's the beauty of open source.

[guest3456]

I'm new to open source and collaborative programming and I'd like to have your advice on Do and Don'ts about publishing changes or addition to other forum user's code.

i typically just make my changes/fixes, and then repost the new script in the thread of the original script. that way my changes are out there for other people to use, and also maybe the original author chooses to incorporate them

[joedf]

So much success in open source!

[Grendahl]

I prefer that the updates done by others stay in the original thread as well, unless the new script is too large a departure from the original, then a new thread should be started.

I can't tell you how many times I've started down a thread and found a better way to do something that the OP had done it.

+1 joedf - definitely so much success in open source

[JnLlnd]

Thank you all for your opinions and ideas. It helps me decide how to approach my current situation. I'll post my short term changes to the original thread.

But, since my coding style is very different from the original style, if I decide to do a major enhancement of the script, I would restart from scratch, create a repo for it (it does not have actually), create a new thread here and inform the original thread (on the old forum) of this new development. Of course, documenting the original programmer's credit.

[Zelio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAlhVOZ8qQ

[joedf]

Nice vid!

[guest3456]

Thank you all for your opinions and ideas. It helps me decide how to approach my current situation. I'll post my short term changes to the original thread.

But, since my coding style is very different from the original style, if I decide to do a major enhancement of the script, I would restart from scratch, create a repo for it (it does not have actually), create a new thread here and inform the original thread (on the old forum) of this new development. Of course, documenting the original programmer's credit.

right, typically in these cases, i forgo my coding style in favor of the original authors. for example, i usually use spaces but if the author uses tabs, then ill use tabs as well. etc.

this way the changes can be easily diff'd to see what was done

[JnLlnd]

right, typically in these cases, i forgo my coding style in favor of the original authors. for example, i usually use spaces but if the author uses tabs, then ill use tabs as well. etc.

Yes. Agree for small updates. But if I rewrite the whole thing with new features, I'll use my own style.

[VxE]

IMHO, the amount of credit given should be proportional to the amount of unaltered code used. So, if you rewrite an existing script completely, it's yours and you don't have to credit whoever you got the idea from*, though you may still thank them.

If you modify someone's code and release it as a fork, give credit (optionally mark your parts of the code with comments).


(*) only for open-source software... if you clone commercial software, that's a different story.

[joedf]

IMHO, the amount of credit given should be proportional to the amount of unaltered code used. So, if you rewrite an existing script completely, it's yours and you don't have to credit whoever you got the idea from*, though you may still thank them.

If you modify someone's code and release it as a fork, give credit (optionally mark your parts of the code with comments).


(*) only for open-source software... if you clone commercial software, that's a different story.

yup!

[JnLlnd]

About this

if you don't want other's to use your code - don't post it.

and this

if you rewrite an existing script completely, it's yours and you don't have to credit whoever you got the idea from*, though you may still thank them.
...
(*) only for open-source software... if you clone commercial software, that's a different story.

What if an author who post some code here without any mention about copyright or open source licensing? Purists about copyright (here in Canada) would argue that copyright is not left if not specifically written. I know we don't have to be as purist but I wonder if you assume that code published here without licencing info is released as open source?

... or should I return coding instead of splitting hairs? :?

[gregster]

Well, open-source doesn't mean that there is no licence or copyright. AHK is open-source under a certain GNU license. If someone is posting code here openly without talking about the license, you might argue that he implies the same licence for his work (and not the WTFPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL) license, if it's not explicitly noted - btw, Sam Hocevar is a member of the "old" forum...) . On the other hand, no one would expect a very strict license. But that would probably depend on the circumstances and your country. Even the interpretation of various open-source licenses is often disputed.

[VxE]

You can split hairs all day if you're so inclined. The act of posting your own code on a public bulletin board without any copyright or license also makes a very strong statement about how you expect others to use that code.

To illustrate: in the US, there is a legal term called "expectation of privacy" which applies when you want to sue someone for invasion of privacy and is affected by the things you do with your private information. A digital analogy could be called "expectation of control over intellectual property" which might apply to cases of IP infringement and is affected by the things you do with your code (such as posting it publicly without copyright or license).

This issue is ambiguous on many levels, so I think it's simpler to make decisions based on your sense of courtesy rather than dubious ethical theory.


In contrast, when there is a license and/or copyright, the issue becomes much less ambiguous.

[Zelio]

Also, if you want maximum protection but still share your code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source , but it is not compatbile if you just fork an open source code, only on free code (public domain, allowed by author). However, to rewrite is not a fork, that why to share and protect is enough for inspiration or track bug, and will protect your baby...