> I think it is the duty of any responsible engineer to look for and cite prior art and related work, if only to compare notes.
replyThe patent system actively discourages this by tripling damages for knowing violation, as does the copyright system by the threat of accusations of copying that are best defended against by 'I never saw it'. It's much safer, legally speaking, to explicitly avoid doing this.
If you've ever worked in a big engineering org, they always give very specific instructions to NOT look for patents/prior work if you are researching, or have come up with, an idea.
replyI did, but those additional requirements are outside the licenses and the legal framework, and more wanting them to match your personal vibe/moral framework around open source. There's case law around this going back to the 80's. A third party is allowed to independently produce, and be extremely inspired, by open source code, and then can license it however they want. Protecting copied functionality is NOT PROTECTED. Again, that was the fucking point. You could, for example, swap out compatible software if you wanted! You wouldn't be tied to one vendor!
replyOpen source licensing protects direct copying. It does NOT protect re-implementing from scratch. See all the lawsuits around Java. You should not be using open source software if you don't want others to read your source!
Yes, I am aware that that credit is not required by law, nor in this case do I wish for credit to be required by law. I am appealing to norms, to basic decency.
reply> I think it is the duty of any responsible engineer to look for and cite prior art and related work, if only to compare notes.
replyMaybe 5 years ago that would be the expectation but all etiquette has been thrown out the window with AI. I think you expect too much.