Commit
- Loading branch information
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -78,4 +78,3 @@ Meteor.startup(function(){ | |
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ <h1>{{appName}}</h1> | |
| License {{mist.license}}<br> | ||
| GitHub <a href="https://github.com/ethereumproject/mist" target="_blank">github.com/ethereumproject/mist</a> | ||
| </p> | ||
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry, something went wrong. 
bobsummerwill
Contributor
|
||
| <small>Copyleft</small> | ||
| </div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| </template> | ||
30 comments
on commit 78e419d
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@frozeman: I'm not sure whose but there is a click-bunty editor being used to edit the files is leaving is lots of whitespace an completely inconsistent formatting. I think it is worth cleaning up.
I have not been available to respond to this drama, I just returned to work today.
I will address this as I fix the security issues and do an actual full a secure build release.
I must say, it is very sweet to know you guys are all reading my commits so closely, but 9 days, this much soap boxing and not 1 line of code altered and no pull request? Stop playing politics and start coding, that is how changes are made.
I'm also not worried about lawsuits, you are welcome to waste your resources on attacking volunteer programmers working on community managed open source projects if you really believe that serves your purposes.
Can you specify exactly what was copyrighted in the source? The images? I don't want to include any copyrighted assets by mistake. I admittedly do not understand the full scope of the copyright claim here and no pull request was made to make it clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you specify exactly what was copyrighted in the source? The images? I don't want to include any copyrighted assets by mistake. I admittedly do not understand the full scope of the copyright claim here and no pull request was made to make it clear.
Just delete all images, CSS, and copy, who cares. Instead of bothering with maintaining mist how about setting up reliable ETC RPC nodes so that Metamask will bring ETC mode back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I admittedly do not understand the full scope of the copyright claim here and no pull request was made to make it clear.
Something like this usually does the trick:
- Copyright 2014-2016 Ethereum Foundation
- Copyright 2016-2018 Ethereum Classic
This remains the correct legal copyright and covers your own changes with your projects copyright claims. This is required for GPL.
For example, check out the header of this bitcoin core source file:
// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
// Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/base58.h#L1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@whatisgravity this isn't drama or politics. We're trying to get something straight here. It's bad enough you blatantly removed the copyright.
I must say, it is very sweet to know you guys are all reading my commits so closely, but 9 days, this much soap boxing and not 1 line of code altered and no pull request? Stop playing politics and start coding, that is how changes are made.
Don't flatter yourself, we are here for one reason, and that is to make sure the copyright gets fixed 😉 Yes, I take this as a pretty serious offence, people have done hard work on this and it's only fair that those people keep their work "as their own" (please don't take that too literal).
Funny that you mention that no PR has been made, ever.
@5chdn That's true, however any continues upstream merges / rebases require you to keep the header up-to-date as well, which means you must update the copyright year and add any upstream external contributors. I'm sure that's what you meant, too, but felt that need to be explicitly pointed out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@obscuren My time is limited, you need to be specific, otherwise, you are doing theater not engineering.
"The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works."
https://github.com/ethereumproject/mist/blob/develop/LICENSE#L10
It is the tenth line in the license file.
What exactly is copyrighted within the project? I can decide if it is reasonable to replace because I prefer not to use copyrighted assets. You are using a copyleft license and you never specified and just said copyright randomly in the about page. Maybe you never read the license you picked but I did and I think copyleft is an important concept, not just something I can use to market to a demographic.
Are you just playing games? You should use your time more wisely, make it clear what the files are or preferably make a pull request with your proposed solution and provide your reasoning.
@5chdn I have no desire to claim copyrights, there is no Ethereum Classic Foundation to make a copyright claim. If you are claiming copyrighted material is in the project, specify exactly what it is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nmushegian I'm using Mist as a stop gap, it is a piece of software that from reading the code looks rushed.
Any real solutions you have can be formed into a pull request and can be discussed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@obscuren My time is limited, you need to be specific, otherwise, you are doing theater not engineering.
Discussing license isn't engineering. You caused this by removing the copyright statement.
@whatisgravity I'll defer to the excellent GNU documentation on copyleft, because as you said, I should use my time more wisely (learn some from your own suggestions and do the same 😉). We've picked our license very carefully, I suggest you read the license very carefully, too.
I agree that the concept of copyleft is very important, but in order to have copyleft it must be copyrighted first. I'll quote from the docs:
Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right”.
Note the last sentence: "left" is not a reference to the verb "to leave", I think you misunderstand/misinterpret the word copyleft.
I hope this further helps your understanding of copyleft and copyright.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What exactly is copyrighted within the project?
Everything (code, styles, images) is copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitly forfeits his IP rights, placing the creation in the public domain.
By default you have no rights whatsoever to use somebody else's copyrighted creation. The only thing which grants you any rights is the license - in this case GPL for the code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you may or may not be aware, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a kopimist but I'm also a pragmatist. Reasoning for the change:
- The copyright is not visible on any of the different OS I tested on due to the default window size specified.
- I was under the understanding I could move any copyright claims to the AUTHORS and README. The git history is intact and authors are credited. (README and AUTHORS updates are not yet made but an issue has been created)
Because I lack expertise on where exactly within the software's stucture the copyright has to be placed, I emailed the FSF, Richard Stallman and others who offer free legal advice to open source developers regarding the topic to get deeper understanding and unbiased perspective.
In the meantime, I encourage you as I said before to make a pull request with your proposed changes and the reasoning.
Does replacing the now hidden copyleft text (due to window size) with the below hidden text work for you? If it does I recommend making a pull request with the below text.
"Ethereum Classic is released, and may be modified and redistributed, under the terms of the GPL version 2 (or later). A copy of the GPL is distributed with Ethereum Classic. Ethereum Classic is copyrighted by its contributors, a list of whom is also distributed with Ethereum Classic."
I have limited time so I will be investing my available time into adding basic proxy support to the client. Basic features like this are still missing and this features are important for novice users interested in running the client more securely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you may or may not be aware, I'm not a lawyer.
That's fine, we're here to give advice. I'll ask politely again to please put the copyright back and not change the licensing.
The copyright is not visible on any of the different OS I tested on due to the default window size specified.
That doesn't mean you can/should remove it. If anything that should be filled under bug. The GNU General Public License, under TERMS AND CONDITIONS - Definitions it states the following:
An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
~
In the meantime, I encourage you as I said before to make a pull request with your proposed changes and the reasoning.
That's not how this works. You don't get to change the copyright and then say "if you want it back, reason and send a pull request". This is OSS, this defies all of it. I suggest we go about it in the following way:
-
you put back the copyright;
-
you do research and gather input from professionals.
i. if you are allowed to remove the copyright, remove it
ii. if not, do nothing
Does replacing the now hidden copyleft text (due to window size) with the below hidden text work for you?
No it doesn't, it doesn't work like that. You don't replace, you add copyright for the work you've added. If there isn't any copyright notice you can do two things:
- you add a copyright, claiming the work you've done
- you do nothing
Please also see section 4 and 5 of the GNU GPL license for more information about modifying source code and the removal of copyright.
Good luck with Stallman & the FSF. I hope you take their advice serious :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You guys understand that the about page literally links to the license right? The copyright is still there. Nothing has been removed.
Look right here:
"License {{mist.license}}
"
The only thing that was changed was the copyright NOTICE not the license itself.
As per the GNU license, what is required is this:
"An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice"
It says nothing about whether one is allowed to CHANGE this copyright notice. Whatisgravity is perfectly allowed to change this notice as long is it still fulfills this line of the GNU. The license itself is the only thing that isn't allowed to be changed. As long as there still exists a copyright notice, it can be whatever he wants it to be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Quick introduction from someone with no stake at ETH or ETC:
- You don't own this code. Whoever wrote it owns it, every single line of it.
- The person that owns it gave you (and everyone) permission to use it and change it as long as you follow certain rules. The rules are stated in the LICENCE. This is the whole point of the GNU, to establish the rules on which you (and me) are allowed to use it.
- One of such rules says that you cannot claim ownership of it, and you are NOT allowed to change the license.
- Another rule says you are free to make changes to the code as long as you release the changes to the public under the same LICENSE (you DO own the parts you write tho).
- If you don't like any of these rules, you are free to not use any of this code and write your own from scratch, and of course you are the owner of it and decide if you want other people to be able to use it/change it.
Pretty simple actually. They wrote the code. They own all of it (copyright) but let people use it under certain conditions. If you use it and break the conditions you are doing something illegal.
Hope it makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@stale2000 actually no, you cannot remove a notice or obfuscate a notice of copyright.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@stale2000 The problem being is they failed to actually provide a copyright within the file structure. There is no copyright anywhere but hidden below the default window size of the about. This is likely because the authors added it to the about page as a way to signal professionalism, I believe this because they failed to put their copyright notice in any other place.
@obscuren You failed to include a copyright notice within the README or include a expected COPYRIGHT file or put it in any file headers or included it in the AUTHORS file. The about still includes a link to the source, and you are still welcome to create a pull request adding a COPYRIGHT file, add it to the headers of the code or add it to the README.
I do not think I did anything which I violates the license and do not claim ownership and would never claim it because I don't believe in intellectual property to begin with. I'm taking your requests seriously and as I have said I have reached out to FSF and Richard Stallman who authored the license for unbias perspective. They have always been very helpful in explaining confusions with the license in the past.
You are welcome to offer a pull request but I'm not going to make any decisions until I receive the responses from the resources I contacted.
@5chdn That was from the headers, this is not a discussion over copyrights directly in the headers of the source code.
@pesho Where did I claim ownership or authorship? All the presumably copyrighted images have been removed. All that is left is code without any copyright notices in any headers, no copyright notices in any COPYRIGHT or AUTHOR file. As you said, the copyright is assumed on the code and copyright notices are not usually found in the about page of many open source projects because of that.
Also they took no time to state their trademark ownership in the about, what am I supposed to make of that? That the EF Foundation has completely given up the entire trademark of both the name and logo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you suggesting I'm obstuficating a already hidden copyright notice?
The notice is not hidden, it's 100% visible in the About Mist box for me. If it's hidden for you that's a bug.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not answer the questions I actually asked you instead of cherry picking from responses to other people?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dr. Stallman has responded back to me, I will take whatever advice he gives and follow that course of action. I'm not an expert on this, never claimed to be and would rather just follow the advice of unbiased experts so I can get back to making this software better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not surprised that he hasn't replied to you yet, @whatisgravity, because what you are discussing is such a basic topic. His response would likely be RTFM.
- You cannot change copyright notices. Period.
- You can add your own copyright too, if you make further changes.
That's the size of it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you point to the location in the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, that specifically says that "You cannot change copyright notices. Period."?
Because I don't see it. People in this thread keep asserting this to be true without actually pointing to the line in the License that says this. If it is so basic, easy, and obvious, then point out the exact line in the license that says so. Repeating claiming something to be true doesn't make it so. Show him the evidence and we can talk about that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not surprised that he hasn't replied to you yet, @whatisgravity, because what you are discussing is such a basic topic. His response would likely be RTFM.
@bobsummerwill Please reread my message, he did respond.
You clearly are weighing in on a subject you are not taking the time to read about, it was the first sentence. I recommend you find better ways to spend your time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, @whatisgravity - I misread, and hope you will follow his advice.
@stale2000 Copyleft leverages copyright for the public benefit. Under copyright law, authors automatically have rights over whatever they create (books, articles, images, source code). Adding copyright notices to source files just makes that authorship crystal clear. You don't actually have to add such annotations - it just makes the tracking easier - and so most corporations will add such notices to all source code as a matter of course. Modifying such notices is terrible form.
Software licenses are not the same as copyright. Copyright is also not the same as trademarks.
If you are the author/owner of a given piece of software, you can choose what licensing terms you wish to release the code under. geth is licensed under GPLv3, as is eth (though that is in the process of being relicensed to Apache 2.0).
What that means is that as the author of a modified work, you do not own the original code. The original authors continue to own that code. You can only use that code under the licensing terms which they agree to.
Here are the TL;DR legal basics of the GPLv3:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-(gpl-3)
You have to include the original copyright. Modifying the original copyright is not only disrespectful to the original authors, but it is actually a violation to licensing terms.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bobsummerwill Forgive me but I believe you are overstating your expertise on this subject. One may argue this is a common trend.
I left the original license and authors file untouched. I will wait until I receive additional advice from a non-biased expert before making a decision as stated previously. And as previously stated, you are welcome to make a pull request with your reasoning included, I even proposed text to be used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@obscuren Are you suggesting I'm obstuficating a already hidden copyright notice? You must realize how absurd you sound?
Of course not, I'm simply stating what can't be done. Please don't insinuate :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, I removed that part. As previously stated, I recommend people offer suggested changes through pull requests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here is a guide from one of the experts I contacted, (https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html):
A copyright notice is allowed to be moved,
"a requirement to “preserve” or “reproduce” a developer’s copyright notice does not necessarily require that the notice be kept in exactly the same place it started; it’s usually acceptable to move notices from individual source files to a central attribution file, for example."
One may argue that since Mist itself is very basic and mostly relies on the underlying framework, and geth meaning the copyright in general may be invalid.
"Not every contribution to a free software project is copyrightable—some may exhibit too little originality, usually because they represent one of very few means of expressing particular functionality. The originality requirements are out of the scope of this document, but are covered thoroughly by our publication Originality Requirements under U.S. and E.U. Copyright Law.4 In short, there’s no clear rule by which to judge whether a contribution is copyrightable."
As stated the copyright notice is not mandatory, and you are advised against unnecessary use:
Since copyright notices are not mandatory, ... Over-use, however, can cause problems. Some developers configure their text editors to insert copyright notices into every file they touch in a given commit; if all they did was move or rename the file, this is almost certainly improper. A proliferation of unwarranted copyright notices can cause the project administrative headaches, for example if it ever needs to contact all of the copyright holders for consent to a change in the license. It’s a good idea to have developers add their own copyright notices, since a copyright notice is a legal representation being made regarding the developer’s rights, but the project should also discourage contributors from indiscriminately adding notices.
As I stated you should have included a COPYRIGHT file or included it in your AUTHORS file:
One common system for maintaining copyright information in a free software distribution is to include copyright notices at the top of every file for each developer who contributed code to that file—we’ll call this the “file-scope” approach. The other system is a “centralized” approach, where copyright notices are collected in a single top-level file (e.g. AUTHORS or COPYRIGHT).
Centralizing the notices is common, and makes sense because Mist is not a complex project.
A centralized approach to license notices addresses the inherent problems with file-scope notices by trading specificity of file-level information for manageability. All licenses that apply to the code are collected in a central location, usually in a file or files at the top level of the code. For projects with only one license, one file (COPYING is traditional, but LICENSE is perhaps less ambiguous) is sufficient.
As I said before, anyone is welcome to issue a pull request to include a COPYRIGHT file or amend the AUTHORS file. I will make the change before an actual release if those who are raising issue fail to invest the time to complete the simple task.
I'm not going to be pressured by biased individuals with financial incentive masquerading as legal experts, I will not be bullied with threats of lawsuits and your niche celebrity status does not hold weight.
In this community, your need to provide evidence and reasoning and make specific recommendations for changes. In the future, if you want changes, you are encouraged to participate and issue pull requests. @obscuren, yes, that is how it works, you may have unilateral control in your organization but this organization puts emphasis on the quality of individual ideas.
The point of these licensing and copyrights are to ensure the software stays free software, that should be the concern, and I don't believe that is the motivation here. @bobsummerwill could not even be bothered to read the messages he was making snarky responses too because he was hoping to score political points. One may argue this calls in to question his ability to read and fully interpret dense legal documents in an unbiased manner.
The license was not modified and will not be modified, copyrights can be moved to central files in the top level. I really hope you spend your time on more important tasks in the future instead of wasting everyone's time playing theater. I encourage you in the future to prioritize the existing security issues as a higher priority.
I will provide additional insights from other experts as I receive responses to my inquiries.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@whatisgravity please email me at jeffrey at ethereum.org. I have had a discussion with a person from the FSF about this (they contacted me). The email basically states "put the copyright back". I wish to forward this to you so that you may hopefully come to your senses.
I don't know what I've done that triggers this response:
In this community, your need to provide evidence and reasoning and make specific recommendations for changes. In the future, if you want changes, you are encouraged to participate and issue pull requests. @obscuren, yes, that is how it works, you may have unilateral control in your organization but this organization puts emphasis on the quality of individual ideas. I encourage you in the future to prioritize the existing security issues as a higher priority.
But you're being awfully hostile. I know we aren't here to make friends, but a little politeness goes a long way.
Again, you don't remove copyright and then say, propose a solution. And even if you were right, a simple ping would have been sufficient: e.g. hey guys, look, I ran in to this copyright thing, I know you've done a lot of hard work but I'm going to remove it because of X. This could have saved you:
- a ton of trouble, because as you said you don't have time to deal with this drama;
- it would have made you look less hostile.
The license was not modified and will not be modified, copyrights can be moved to central files in the top level. I really hope you spend your time on more important tasks in the future instead of wasting everyone's time playing theater.
Are these comments truly necessary? Could we just stay on the topic of the license issue?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@obscuren You were the one who implicitly threaten him with a lawsuit. When you do something extremely hostile, like hinting that you are going to send lawyers after someone, don't expect that person to respond in a polite way.
"Stuff like this can also get you in a whole lot of unnecessary trouble."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@stale2000 Nonsense. I did no such thing. That sentence can mean many, many things and is left very generic for a reason. Sending lawyers after him surely wasn't what I meant. Look at my other responses and please redraw a conclusion. I'm actually trying to make him understand copyright (and educate a little).
Why would you think I would hint at sending him lawyers? Do you know me at all? Do I strike you as the person that would hide obnoxious messages? If I want to send lawyers (WHICH I AM NOT) I'd have said change the license or I'll send a lawyer, plain and simple.
I feel this conversation is going off topic. The last few comments are evident that this conversation is turning incredible sour. I have obtained @whatisgravity email and I will continue to discuss with him in private.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copy right and open source doesn't exclude itself, Everything has a copy right by default..
If you fork code, you guys shouldn't change copyright and license stuff, otherwise you make yourself vulnerable to lawsuits ;)
Its already bad enough that you copy and past the code, instead of properly forking in github, so that people ca see where it comes from.
@frozeman I did not copy and paste anything, I did a git clone, then I removed the remote origin and added a new remote origin and pushed it. I added your repository back as etf instead of origin to make pulling from upstream easier.
Why did we fork this way?
If you do not know why we did this, it is because you failed to ask why, or read our public and open discussion. We have pragmatic reasons for the decisions we made.
You are aware that git is separate from github and that forking in github is just an abstraction right? The fork abstraction is sometimes useful but is not always useful.
We did not delete the .git folders and reinitialize the git repository, we essentially did exactly what github does when clicking the fork button, except now we get access to all the important features non-forked repositories get immediately. That is why the complete git commit history is still intact and its very easy to see where it came from, many ethereumproject projects have an explicit link to the original repository in the README. It is very easy to see that for anyone who knows how to use git, and if they don't the AUTHORS file is unmodified.
git is a wonderful piece of software and it does not require github, it is independent from it. The history of all commits is recorded in git not github. Which is why I can clone your free software repo and serve the repository from my own server and still comply with the license, even though it wouldn't have the same github fork abstraction.
To be direct, the GPL is there so anyone who uses this software and all of its derivatives can "copy and past[e]" it. Copying is not a bad thing, copying is not stealing, copying and pasting is good. No one is trying to take credit for the authorship and there is no evidence to believe this is happening, nor would I want to take it.
License "stuff"
The next major issue is I didn't change any license "stuff". You can see the commit, so I don't know why you would say that, I can only speculate.
I'm moving an already redundant and isolated copyright attribution to a central top level COPYRIGHT file so it is even more clear, which to say directly, you should have done, especially given your willingness to fight in this thread. We both agree that your commits are copyrighted to you by default, because the git commit history exists proving you submitted the commits, but if you feel this must be explicit, you should have included in the README that is missing details about the license. You could have also taken the time to add the copyright to the headers of each file. All or some of which you are still welcome to do and issue a pull request.
You oddly seem to feel this is important enough to fight over, yet not important enough to actually include in any source files, COPYRIGHT file or even the README, or to make those additions and issue a pull request. So because you feel it is important enough to fight over but not important enough to do properly, I will take the time to correct your mistake by adding a COPYRIGHT file in the top directory and modify the README to include both license information and a copyright attribution.
This new COPYRIGHT file and README will have the following text:
Ethereum Classic is copyrighted by its contributors, a list of whom is also distributed with Ethereum Classic.
Copyright 2016 Ethereum Foundation
I don't think Ethereum Foundation technically holds the copyright, it is my understanding that it is held collectively by the different developers who contributed but I'm not an expert. Regardless, all the contributors and their contributions are made clear in both the git commit history included with the source and the untouched AUTHORS file. All of this and the soon to be created COPYRIGHT file and the soon to be amended README are both linked in the about page as you can see above.
You are welcome and encouraged to offer alternatives to this or the text in the proposed COPYRIGHT file.
To be very clear, no one is trying to take credit for the authorship and there is no evidence to believe this is happening, nor would I want to take it. To be direct, I doubt many would, it is not well made. Using githubs terminology, the "blame" for this software is recorded in the git history and this is even navigable by novice users with github unable to use git.
I do welcome criticism but I would appreciate it if you took the time to formulate thoughtful criticism, with complete sentences, to save us all time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@obscuren My email is [email protected]
I have not yet received an email, but to clarify I'm willing to talk this over in public or private. I actively encourage everyone to offer alternatives to the text or solution in my post to @frozeman above this post.
Even though I think this whole exercise is exposing the accusers willingness to overstate ones expertise, possible gaps in knowledge, and poorly written accusations not in line with the spirit of free software more than anything else, I hold no animosity towards any of you and I appreciate all the work you have done.
You can always find me on irc.oftc.net at #etc-dev too, I idle there. I prefer it over Slack because I can connect using free software and it is operated with free software to help support the free software community. You are welcome to idle there and speak to me directly anytime.
For me this is not just pandering, I use a linux distro that prioritizes free software not OSX, vi not coda, and so on with each tool in my development environment because I truly care about free software.
Copy right and open source doesn't exclude itself, Everything has a copy right by default..
If you fork code, you guys shouldn't change copyright and license stuff, otherwise you make yourself vulnerable to lawsuits ;)
Its already bad enough that you copy and past the code, instead of properly forking in github, so that people ca see where it comes from.