Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
webfork wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:17 am
Thanks for both posting that and moving that conversation to the forums. More to come.
Update here: so this whole process ran into some difficulty after the Github purchase by Microsoft. My original plan was to get the program posted to Github by way of hosting and some publicity, but now I'm not sure how to proceed. I'm so far underwhelmed by some of the alternatives that I've been exploring.
Fwiw, re Github uploads, by default during the upload process (at least when using the web interface) Github asks you to select a license type and after the repository (the place where the code is hosted) has been created automatically modifies the copyright of the license to the username uploading it initially, unless it was forked from an existing repository which had a license in which case it preserves the original license text.
I take it vatterspun is Webfork? Seems like a simple oversight with not having the license file replaced tbh but they can speak for themselves.
Ding-A-Ling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:17 amSo, vatterspun -- I think we know who that is -- is claiming copyright and ownership.
I really should have known better about making the source code available. I'd had my doubts and misgivings and they proved right. I shall not release source code again and be taken advantage of.
Releasing something as open source doesn't meant you relinquish copyright. You still own it and it's illegal for someone to claim it as their own. Your copyright has to remain intact. The logic is that your mention in the copyright is the value you get for the work you did. Post an issue to the project with the details of the copyright violation, I'd wager it was an innocent mistake as it appears to be a default MIT license file). You can even file a DMCA takedown on that project on github if you're so inclined.
EDIT: It appears that github updated it automatically, which is a pretty poor workflow on their part.
Last edited by JohnTHaller on Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ding-A-Ling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:17 am
@Webfork
I'm not impressed and I'm really disappointed. I'm being polite (Heaven knows why).
I really should have known better about making the source code available. I'd had my doubts and misgivings and they proved right. I shall not release source code again and be taken advantage of.
The license and copyright listing were automatically generated, as Specular suggested. If you look at the home page, the license you posted is listed and was listed that way from the beginning.
The license file is now also modified to mirror what was already on the main page.