Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: peter-swing Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <30110576.211.1335459876873.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcqo4> References: <15372322.181.1335299218185.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbqb5> <30295463.494.1335447028982.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcnj6> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335459877 18745 127.0.0.1 (26 Apr 2012 17:04:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:13924 markspace wrote: > Peter Cheung wrote: >> peter-swing is open source project, open source project plagiarized >> another open source project? >=20 > Open source does not mean free. Most open source licenses have > restrictions. When you read the line below, what does it mean to you? > And why did you remove not only the copyright notice, but also ALL Java > doc comments? >=20 >>> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. Quite aside from the ethical and legal malfeasance, the engineering basis f= or including source to the core Java libraries as your own is non-existent.= Platform classes are already part of the platform; why would "peter-swing"= need to copy them at all, much less steal them? This raises the distinct possibility that the code itself, quite aside from= the documentation lack, the ethics lack, the build script lack, and the le= gal dodginess, is crap. I cannot expect that a product built on the unneces= sary duplication of classes guaranteed to be present anyway would be otherw= ise. I am willing to hear countervailing evidence, but so far the OP has only re= sponded with ambiguous sentence fragments and avoidance of the issues raise= d, or to the very limited extent that he responded, weak excuses. --=20 Lew