The document of the open source framework Egg.js was reprinted without authorization, and the original author became a "villain" and was attacked on v2ex

On May 26, the core developer of Egg.js (Alibaba's open-source enterprise-level Node.js framework) @ "天 Pig" posted an article on Zhihu entitled "About my personal "malicious complaint" about the unauthorized reprinting incident of others. Explanation", expressing confusion about the fact that he recently turned into a "villain" and was "punished" on v2ex.

The developer's original text reprinted the MIT License agreement document and was known to be infringing

It turns out that many years ago, @天 Pig wrote a document on the use of a certain feature of an open source project of Egg.js, and published the document to 2 places in 2018 - Egg.js Knowing Column ( Documentation A) and Egg.js's GitHub repo documentation repository (Documentation B).

Among them, the copyright of document A has been authorized to Zhihu (the address of the document in Zhihu column is "Tianzhu: When Egg encounters TypeScript, harvest a tea egg https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/35334932 ) ”, while Document B is published on GitHub under the MIT License.

It's worth noting that the content posted to these two places (Document A and Document B) mostly overlaps.

In 2019, developer @an168bang521 reprinted the original text of Egg.js (document B) from GitHub to his personal website ( https://www.axihe.com/edu/ egg/tutorials/typescript.html ) (this article has now been deleted).

However, because the Egg.js document (document B) uses the MIT License agreement, that is, "allows anyone to use and operate under the MIT agreement", so the developer @an168bang521 reproduced the document intact and caused controversy.

(Link to MIT LICENS used by Eggjs: https://github.com/eggjs/egg/blob/master/LICENSE )

Subsequently, the developer @an168bang521 received an "infringement notification letter" from Zhihu from the personal webpage of document B (using the MIT License).

Therefore, the developer @an168bang521 finally remembered the original author of the Egg.js document (document B), and sent a private message to @“天 Pig” on the Zhihu platform.

Reprinted without authorization, the original author of the Egg.js document turned into a villain and was "crusade" on v2ex

Just the night before this statement was released, @“天 Pig” just received a private email from the developer @an168bang521.

In the email, the developer claimed that he was informed of infringement by Zhihu because he excerpted a "technical document of the open source software Egg.js on GitHub" by the original author @"天 Pig" in 2019, and received a commission from Zhihu "Infringement Notification Letter" sent by the company.

The developer @an168bang521 said that because document B uses the MIT License agreement, he "uses a large number of documents in this repository, which belongs to the use, copy, modification, merger, release, distribution, sublicense or sale in MIT" .

In response, Egg.js core maintainer @“天 Pig” responded that this is “because their column (document A) in Zhihu has authorized the platform’s copyright service, (but because most of the content of document A and document B) Coincidence) Therefore, when the Zhihu platform detects that the corresponding article has been reproduced without authorization, it will automatically send an infringement notice.

Surprisingly, on the second day after receiving the email, when @“天 Pig” was inexplicably and confused, the developer @an168bang521 had posted the incident on v2ex, and was attacked by A "crusade" from a bunch of respondents in the comment area.

(I would like to ask the old buddies who understand the law, whether excerpting the content of the technical documentation of Ali's open source software Egg.js is considered infringement: https://www.v2ex.com/t/855289 )

At this point, the author @"天 Pig" discovered that his open-source Egg.js technical documentation was reprinted without authorization, and now he is forced to become a "villain and clown" instead?

Subsequently, @“天 Pig” began to pay attention to the incident, and officially began to study legal matters related to “unauthorized reprinting of open source framework documents based on the MIT protocol”.

At present, @"天 Pig" has attached its own "appeal" to the statement - "The only requirement is: greet me in advance to obtain authorization, indicate the source of the original text, and do not destroy the structure of the article and add too many advertisements."

@"天 Pig" said that regarding the issue of the three-party release of the document site, his own views are the same as last year's Vue @youyuxi - Regarding documents, agreements and copyrights, the main expectations are: timely synchronization + indicating unofficial + source + Don't break the article structure and add too many advertisements.

Finally, @"天 Pig" also emphasized that "because we all love open source, we basically default to MIT. If we really want to use it, we don't seem to have too many ways. If the three parties have excessive behavior, we can only fail. Forcing my follow-up open source projects to reconsider open source protocols."

Regarding the follow-up development of this incident, the editorial department of Segmentfault on this site will also continue to pay attention. If you have relevant views on this incident, you are also welcome to leave a message and interact in the comment area.

Reference link: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/520119900