Standard for code "sharing"

[colinmollenhour]

As this recently was a point of contention (PR #4697), I'd like to begin addressing it as a community. In short, Sven opened a PR which Fabrizio contended was inspired by a Maho PR and proper credit was not attributed to the Maho PR. The specifics of that case aside, I'd like to discuss how we can set a more clear standard for determining when attribution credit is due so no effort is wasted on disagreements over it in the future.

As none of us are lawyers and we don't want to spend time and money consulting with one, I did what all lawyers would probably advise against and... asked AI.. 😆
I'm sure the answer could vary based on which AI you ask and how you frame the question, but my response was (shortened):

No, the copying fork isn’t legally required to add the other fork’s copyright notice for a few lines unless those lines are a substantial, original contribution under copyright law and the OSL’s attribution requirements are interpreted strictly in that context. However, to maintain transparency and adhere to community norms, it would be a good idea to include the other fork’s copyright notice (e.g., "Portions Copyright 2024 Fork B") in the file header where the code was added. This avoids ambiguity and respects the contributing fork’s authorship.
If the forks are actively collaborating or competing, they might also consider clarifying their policies on attribution in their project documentation to preempt licensing questions like this!

Based on the recent PR, it seems clear that the +78,-117 lines changed is considered "substantial" by both authors which seems very reasonable. To avoid conflict on this and since the cost is nothing to do so, I propose that we are very liberal with our definition of "substantial" and it could be as little as one line of code if that line of code was somehow non-trivial and not simply a following of common Magento coding conventions. To keep it short, if it's worth creating a PR for, we will consider it substantial.

Hopefully, all terms are applied mutually and symmetrically by both OpenMage and Maho (or any other fork). For this we will need to await Fabrizio's 30 day ban to expire so he can join the discussion, but I wanted to go ahead and start it before I forgot and while it was fresh on my mind. Until that ban is expired and this discussion resolved, I propose halting any more porting of PRs from Maho.

To try to sum it up as much as possible, my proposal for a policy wording would look something like this:

If the work includes code or inspiration taken from reading PRs, blog posts, release notes, etc. on a third-party fork repo, website or other source, a mention must be made in the PR description like "Credit for prior work inspiration to {ref}".
Additionally, if the file that the code or inspiration originated from, in whole or in part, contains the Maho copyright notice, that line must also be copied to the corresponding file in OpenMage, even if it ends up with a slightly different file name.

[addison74]

If we let artificial intelligence resolve disputes then let's ask it in more detail:

When two people create the same product and then one of them accuses the other of stealing their idea/product, how can we determine who the author is?

and here is the answer

When two people create the same product and one accuses the other of stealing their idea or product, determining authorship can be challenging. However, there are several steps you can take to investigate the situation:

1. Examine the Timeline of Creation

• Date of Initial Concept: Look at the timeline of both parties' work. If there are records, such as emails, notes, drafts, or documents that show when each person started working on the idea or product, this can help establish who came up with it first.
• Creation and Development Stages: Sometimes the original idea or concept might be similar, but the development process, design, or execution might be different. Understanding who developed the idea further or in a different direction could give insight into authorship.

2. Look for Documentation of Creation

• Prototypes and Sketches: If there are any earlier prototypes, sketches, or designs that one person can prove were created first, this might provide evidence of who originated the idea.
• Digital Footprints: For digital products (software, designs, etc.), version control systems, file creation dates, and modification history can give insight into who worked on the product first.

3. Review Communication Between Parties

• Emails and Messages: If both people communicated about the idea/product during the creation process (via email, text, or chat), these messages could show who was the originator or who played a more active role.
• Collaborative Work: If there were discussions about working together or sharing ideas, those exchanges might clarify who had the original concept and who contributed what.

4. Assess the Nature of the Idea

• Common Knowledge or Public Domain Ideas: If the idea is something commonly known or widely used in the industry, both people may have come up with it independently, which is called concurrent invention. In such cases, there may be no clear "owner" of the idea, but the execution and specific development could still be distinct.
• Novelty and Innovation: If one person is claiming to have developed the idea from scratch and the other person was simply "copying" or "stealing," it is important to look at the originality of each person’s contribution. Who made the significant, original changes or improvements to the product?

5. Assess the Level of Contribution

• Primary Creator vs. Secondary Contributor: Even if both parties worked on the same idea, one may have played a more significant role in the creation of the product. If one person mainly provided feedback or helped refine the product, while the other developed it, the primary developer may have stronger claims to authorship.
• Division of Labor: Who handled the technical aspects of the product? Who contributed the original idea, and who did the majority of the design, development, or marketing?

6. Check for Prior Disclosure

• Public Disclosure: If either party publicly disclosed their idea (for example, through blogs, social media, patents, or pitches) before working with the other person, that could serve as proof of prior ownership or authorship.
• Patents and Trademarks: If either person has filed for a patent or trademark related to the product, it could establish who holds the legal rights to the invention or idea. A patent or trademark filing is generally a strong indicator of who considered themselves the inventor or creator first.

7. Examine Legal Rights and Agreements

• Contracts or Agreements: If both parties worked together and there was a written agreement (or even verbal agreement), the terms should clarify ownership of the work. If there was no agreement, the situation might be more complicated and could require legal intervention.
• Copyright/Patent Law: Depending on the product, the legal framework can help determine who owns the rights. For example, a patent application with a filing date can establish who has the intellectual property rights over the invention. In the case of creative works, copyright law could apply.

8. Mediation or Third-Party Input

• Mediation: If both parties can’t come to a resolution, involving a neutral third party (such as a mediator or an industry expert) might help clear up the confusion. Mediation allows both sides to present their case and can help facilitate a fair solution.
• Legal Experts: If the matter involves significant legal or financial consequences, seeking advice from intellectual property lawyers can be a good step to resolve the dispute.

9. Check for Independent Creation

• Independent Development: It’s possible that both parties came up with the same idea independently, a phenomenon known as concurrent invention. In such cases, determining who was the first to develop the product or claim ownership could depend on tangible evidence of who started working on it first, as well as who refined and finalized the product.

In Summary:

To determine the true author or originator of the product, you should look for evidence of the initial concept, development process, documentation (such as sketches, drafts, emails), communication, and any legal protections (like patents or copyrights). If both people created it independently, then they might both be credited for their respective work, but if one person can demonstrate they developed the idea first or had a greater contribution, that person may be considered the author.

[colinmollenhour]

That's way too many steps... 🤯
I want a framework that is as simple and easy to apply as possible. There should be nothing to dispute, but sure, that may not be possible in all cases. However, we're not litigating for damages or anything, just a simple "if in doubt, give some credit" - giving credit costs nothing. Any dispute should be avoided, and if there was still a dispute that can't be worked out between the two authors, then there would be something seriously wrong - it just wouldn't potentially be the lack of a clear policy.

[addison74]

Regarding the recent event and considering the disagreements that some of us have had in the past, I believe that any problem that arises can be resolved discreetly and elegantly, without bringing the community into a boxing ring.

[colinmollenhour]

Yes, exactly. But that's also not something that we can really control. Any Github user can open a PR, and then any other Github user can comment on it disputing the source of the work/inspiration. My goal is that nobody should have to be a mediator in such a dispute. Rather, it should be as clear as possible what our standard is so that everyone can just follow the standard and disputes over it should be few and far between.

[colinmollenhour]

I created a PR with my proposed changes to the CoC if anyone cares to review and provide feedback. #4733