Yes, I have.
To be very honest with you, I was somewhat amazed that he did that.
After presenting my own idea and working code to the group (including all of the Tk drawing primitives which he then reimplemented, as well as a number which he did not), he then apparently thought it enough of a good idea to try rewriting (partially) and uploading to CPAN himself, but not good enough of an idea to mention my presentation or prior work, or the fact that he used the exact same "look and feel" of a "pen-up" turtle vs. a "pen-down" turtle.
Additionally, he points out that "his" work allows for multiple turtles simultaneously. In fact, this was an idea which came out of the client/server model I had already used (and presented), and was in fact originally an idea proposed to me by my colleague wulvrine.
Now it may be that I'm just being naive to how open-source is supposed to work. But after emailing Mr. London, and telling him that I was still planning on releasing my work to CPAN, he wrote back that it wasn't his intent to take anything away from what I had done, and offered to let me take over what he had already done.
So the way it's been left is that I'm going to maintain the Tk::CanvasLogo project. I still need to find out exactly what the process is for doing that.
s''(q.S:$/9=(T1';s;(..)(..);$..=substr+crypt($1,$2),2,3;eg;print$..$/
| [reply] |
Well, I think the point was that he really wanted you to inherit from Canvas. uri bitched about other aspects of the code, not inheriting bugged Greg. I was surprised at
the module implementation though, as I still think that some division between Language::Logo and the visual aspect (Tk::Canvas::Logo, or what have you) be separated.
As for taking over, the easiest is for him to give you commit bits to the project on PAUSE. You will then both have the ability to publish, though he would still be the first listed name in the module list. You could of course try to "set the record straight" in the POD with any updates.
--
In Bob We Trust, All Others Bring Data.
| [reply] |
So if someone feels strongly about the way a module is written, he should be allowed to take someone else's idea and implement it as his own?! Wow ... I'm at a loss for words ...
A good friend of mine told me a story years ago, when he had some novel ideas for a product (his field was biochemistry), and was trying to start his own company, but needed to get financing for it. The venture capital corporation which he was talking with told him they were NOT willing to finance the development of a new technology. "However", they said, "we would be fine with having you steal the technology from another company, and we will pay to defend you in court". Apparently, that was a much cheaper, and presumably profitable strategy. My friend was very disappointed, but he gave up the idea because the thought of stealing someone else's ideas went against his values.
So let me ask you ... let's say you had presented one of your modules before publishing them, perhaps this or maybe this. And Greg London heard your presentation, but felt strongly about the namespace, or other implementation details. Or maybe he simply noticed that you hadn't yet published it on CPAN. Would that have given him the ethical right to publish it first?
I wonder how Mr. London would feel if I started distributing this or this with my own name on it instead of his own? (I wouldn't do that of course -- it goes against my moral standards).
s''(q.S:$/9=(T1';s;(..)(..);$..=substr+crypt($1,$2),2,3;eg;print$..$/
| [reply] |
