written by richard lightman [
... ] his web site is now offline: you can get a copy of depinit however using archive.org.
Last snapshot I could find on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/200...
...it is arguably "stealing reputation" (depriving another of their reputation and taking it for yourself).
I've referred to it as "reputation fraud," but yes, we appear to be in general agreement.
I see this old semantic game blooms anew on Slashdot. "It isn't stealing". Fine. It's fraud. Don't worry that your reputation is shot and/or somebody else is trading on your good name. It isn't stealing. Oh... the victim feels much better now.
I don't understand; what are you complaining about? You're correct. It isn't theft, it is fraud. So why call it theft when it's clearly something else?
If you call it by the correct name, you'll get community support, even among the "copying is not theft" crowd. OTOH, if you call it stealing, then you'll get mired in a gigantic semantic dogpile as hundreds of people re-litigate what constitutes "stealing."
We don't even need to raise the "Is it stealing?" question in this case. It's clearly fraud. So call it "fraud." Geez...
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS DOING ON SLASHDOT?!?
You want to spread whiny, partisan, maliciously misleading horseshit? Go to RedState or Breitbart; that's their stock in trade. It doesn't fscking belong here. Get this garbage off Slashdot now.
Professionals do the job and get paid.
They did neither.
End of argument.
"Hey, kid. If you get down in that mine, dig out the coal, and bring it back to me, I'll pay you.
What self-serving sophistry.
"Contracts" or not, the developers' reaction was the correct one.
The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone