Conveniently omitted was the PR that Mia submitted and was rejected for code in that same timeframe.

PyLova's leading Dev initially tried to play nice and offer security fixes upstream.

The Dev got told off for attempting to help.

After that, it doesn't really matter the intent. It was perceived negatively and related further actions carry that weight a bit too.

At the least, if this was an honest mistake, why not directly contact us instead of playing to an audience?

This seems a lot more like public relations posting than "oops!".

There's months long history of completely disregarding appropriate people to contact, and instead making grandstands and assumptions.

We've moved on. What gives Rimu?

Addendum: all of us were directly kicked, without discussion or direct prompt, from the associated support channels for piefed. It had been made exceptionally clear that we were not welcome.

Just give pylova proper attribution. That's all rimu needed to do. It's not stealing it's just a minor license violation -at worst. Typically, every single file doesn't need the license in it. So that's kind of a cop out by Rimu. Contributors should be acknowledged for their contributions.

Why do developers of open source software have to make shit so difficult?

Rimu's manipulating and mistelling events to make himself seem like the innocent aggrieved party again?

(Note: I was also contributor to PieFed from long before this)

Rimu admits to trying to steal my code and trying to do so without attributing myself.

Rimu also deliberately renamed the Quokka theme to Quack, so this was beyond simply copying my code and a very intentional effort to remove any references.

https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/pulls/1801

I had even submitted PR's to the PieFed project, of which other PieFed contributors supported but Rimu without saying anything closed the whole thread off.

What did Rimu do? Kicked me from all the PieFed channels, banned me from Piefed.social, sent a message out to all other admins telling them to ban me, complained that people were screenshotting the things he was saying and showing other people, and coded in the ability to shadow ban instances so that he could set Quokk.au to not be visible to users of PieFed and not visible on the Instance Picker for new users.

Frankly this manipulative rant of Rimu's highlights his complete immaturity and reflects poorly on PieFed as a project, if his priorities lay in obsessing over months old drama.

I will use this opportunity to plug in PyLova , which is rapidly gaining new features and removing the questionable decisions such as secret censorship, limiting users ability to vote, and all around egomanical desire to control how others experience the Threadiverse.

If you would like to check it out, please consider making an account on either Quokk.au or Anarchist.Nexus. If you are an admin curious about switching over to PyLova, it's extremely easy to do requing you to only pull from the CodeBerg, otherwise if you are curious or wanting to suggest features please reach out to us at our Matrix channel

I think the correct way is to ask to get a patch upstream?

pretty balsy move on his part, considering he has unpatched security vulns that we tried to upstream and he rejected. we've since stopped trying. someone closely watching our commits would probably see some shit that Piefed was still vulnerable to.

anyway, him stealing themes won't work for much longer, because we've been making enough changes that we've broken compatibility for them. and further changes are coming. many, many changes are coming, and will keep coming, so check out PyLova because at this point it's better and more secure than Piefed.

Isn't the whole point of free software is that you can use it how you want?

I think the main thing here is the timing and context

The fork became into existence during the split in Piefed community around May (IYKYK). I think that the way you played out this incorporation of the code might have felt as erasure of contribution. It's not about the code or licenses. It's about how we treat each other. As far as I read the room, the fork became because of what was happening, not because of having a different vision. It came into existence, so those who could no longer type in Matrix support channels could still affect how the software they are running behaves. And then the mainline, they were (socially-wise) barred from influencing, copied some of their changes. And some with another author on the commit.
PyLova being a fork, you could have cherry-picked the commits. It keeps original authors. The first copy via a patch that kept attribution was better.
With the stuff going on in the background you could have asked in an issue if they are ok with you taking these parts. Legally they probably couldn't say no, but people-wise sometimes the point is if someone asks.
You also could have mentioned them in commit message.

Without that context, I think just copying the code would be ok. As far as my understanding goes, it is one of the core ideas behind open-source that improvements are not gate-kept behind the will of the one doing the improvement to share or not. Maybe a mention in the merge commit message or the first commit of the copy would be a polite thing to do.
But with the context of what was happening in the background, I think it might have felt first as "you go play away from us, you're on your own, good luck" and then "oh, good idea. I'm gonna present it as my own"
Again, my take is about feelings and participating in communities. Not laws and licenses

Is there a point having this up for discussion on an instance where one party has largely been blocked / shadowbanned? Take it to one of the neutral comms if the intention is good.

Edit: https://lemmy.zip/post/69654448