OSNews

I don't think this is a matter of someone trying to steal someone else's work and pass it off as their own.

This is a matter of someone using someone else's code temporarily and pushing it off onto a CVS repository without thinking about the consequences (allow us all to re-read this statement multiple times, less we should forget it again).

am *I* wrong for calling it to your attention? Or am I just wrong if I "cc" too many people in my reply? What is the acceptable amount of people for the first notice?

Right and wrong can be argued to no end (as philosophers have been doing for eons), and there are so many varying shades of grey, however, I myself would have chosen personal (private) contact first, so that I could find out what was going on before potentially making an ass out of anyone (myself included) -- and as far as I can see, Michael Buesch's approach, only served to show the worst side of everyone, both those involved and uninvolved, himself included -- although I doubt that was his original intention -- and I wonder if any of us can look at this objectively enough to learn from it?

And in the end what have we really gained? Michael does not have his recognition, the OpenBSD driver was deleted, Marcus is publicly humiliated, and everyone has gotten needlessly worked up over spilt milk. Good lord -- we're talking about a wireless network driver here, in fact, only a portion of it, one that does not even work, yet we treat it as the oncoming of the Third Reich. Some fights are worth fighting, I am doubtful that this is one of them.

It seems to me the original issue could have been remedied, and the subsequent lynching prevented, had personal contact been made first. To accuse someone of stealing without first investigating and talking to them is a demonstration of a true black and white mentality -- the very same mentality we see taking extremely polar view points in these comments. It is for these reasons that our respective countries have chosen judicial systems that separate the victim from the process, and presume innocence before guilt.

Let us not forget that this was a work in progress, and the fact that it didn't work certainly provides evidence to support this claim. Marcus was not actively going around distributing the code pretending it was his -- yes -- it was on a CVS server, but as mentioned before, CVS servers require you to go out of your way to get anything off them. They are a passive system of distribution (you have to want to get something off them, know how to do it, and know what you want), so I think it's easy to see how one can mistakenly commit something without thinking they've done anything wrong.

YES, proper recognition should have been given, even if the code was only going to be used temporarily, however, I don't think that anyone here would want to be in Marcus's position -- and to be publicly labelled a thief, with no real investigation, trial, or conviction beforehand.