451895 - Oh Ki-Tae personal attack and vandalization of WikiLook reviews and support site

Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Administration, defect)

Description

[[e-mail]]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Build Identifier: 

First, WikiLook (released under GPL) based on source code and inspired by KitaDic extension. KitaDic also released under GPL. KitaDic extension itself "heavily relies on the source code of BackWord extension"(quotation).  And BackWord also released under GPL and use code from other GPL based projects.

Today, from nowhere I received hate mail from Oh Ki-Tae with threat, that she wrote script that will vandalize my wiki based WikiLook support page, on daily basis. You can see email here: http://www.autohotkey.net/~TePe/kita.PNG The supoprt page was indeed vandalized. Oh Ki-Tae also left misleading "reviews" on WikiLook AMO page, claiming I have "pirated" her code. I never received any complains or requests from her before today(she in fact was always nice during email communications before). I realised new version (WikiLook 1.3.3) in wich I mimic exact way of KitaDic extension credit BackWord developers. In fact, in earlyer versions of WikiLook Oh Ki-Tae was credited under developers section under her real name. I removed that (now it done the way she done crediting in KitaDic).  Furthermore, I am willing to credit her anyway she want or wish.

But writing scripts for vandalizing of support pages and leaving incorrect and misleading reviews on AMO is not best way to notify about problem (if there is any). I have reported "reviews" and reverted her other edits. And hope she will reconsider her "This is the last communication with you. Never reply." statement and change her attitude. 

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[Kitae Oh]

How childish of Vitall to ask for help in AMO bugzilla to cover his copyright infringement misdeed!

I'm the developer of "KitaDic" which I released to the public under GPL license on 2006. A person named Vitall saw the source code of my KitaDic extension, broke the GPL license by removing the original author credits, and released cosmetic changed version with a new name WikiLook, and even still 99% of the codes are identical he didn't credit the original authors.

This is apparent copyright infringement.

* About 2~3 weeks ago, Vitall personally sent me messages that he put my credit in the source code. At that time, I was busy and not interested in WikiLook. Last week, I investigated the WikiLook source code and found out that this is a clear copyright infringement. As to the current version of WikiLook, there is no credit of any original authors anywhere in the source code nor on the web site, except the one released *today*.

* As one of the FF lover and extension developer, I'm not interested in vandalizing the addon.mozilla.org site. I'm properly reviewing and giving information about the WikiLook extension, as the valid copyright holder under GPL license of KitaDic. I'm writing warning messages in his USER PAGE in *Wikipedia*, but not in addon.mozilla.com. See the same image http://www.autohotkey.net/~TePe/kita.PNG and check the context of the conversation. It clearly says "*wikipedia*". What he said "revert" is about Wikipedia User Page. Why does he try to mix contexts and confuse people?

* WikiLook has been released without proper crediting of original authors so far. Today, it seems that Vitall released a new version of WikiLook with credits to avoid further the problem. This self-proves that he has been breaking the GPL license. And it cannot justify his copyright violation.

* I wish some authorized people here in mozilla community can help me to resolve this copyright infringement dispute. 

Comment 2

[[e-mail]]

1) Oh Ki-Tae was credited as developer since WikiLook 1.0 realize under developer section.

2) I did made new version, that mimic EXACT way Oh Ki-Tae credited BackWord developers in her KitaDic (version 0.3.018b, the one I have forked). Should not it solve problem? If not, then why?

3) All projects, FastDic, BackWord, KitaDic, Wikilook are open source and released under terms of GPL.  It is right of any user to look into source code, modify it and distribute it under terms of GPL. And that is basic right.

4) GNU GPL require every copy of software to carry an appropriate copyright notice in developer name.
Please check: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit  It is a helpful link to understand requirement. Or, please read GPL itself. That was done using files WikiLook.xul (for WikiLook) and KitaDic.xul (for KitaDic). We both in fact credited the original author that started this mess with FastDic extension back in 2004. The guy name Kwon Jung Hyuk. I copy pasted that statement directly from KitaDic.xul into WikiLook.xul. We (Oh Ki-Tae and myself) also credited ourselves.

5) WikiLook is a huge improvement over KitaDic. With most code rewritten. It would not take long to realize it if you try to actually use add-ons. KitaDic never reached state, when you can call it being "usable". 

As you can see from post above, Oh Ki-Tae threatened to vandalize WikiLook support page with the bot. She successfully implemented and used bot for vandalization. As result her IP was blocked from editing Wikipedia (that is where WL support located) and pages were protected from vandals. You can check her new e-mails sent when she realized that:

http://www.autohotkey.net/~TePe/kita2.PNG

Definitely worth of reading! She still waiting for vandal protection to expire. I do hope that her nonsense "reviews" would be deleted from WikiLook page too.

Anyway, I'm still open to constructive suggestions and willing to modify credit information the way Oh Ki-Tae want. If that help resolve issue. Even perfectly knowing I don't have to.

Comment 3

[Kitae Oh]

1) Oh Ki-Tae was credited as developer since WikiLook 1.0 realize under
developer section.
- I have no idea what you are saying. There is no such section nor my contact nor "KitaDic" in WikiLook addon page, dev website, source code, and packing nfo files.

2) I did made new version, that mimic EXACT way Oh Ki-Tae credited BackWord
developers in her KitaDic (version 0.3.018b, the one I have forked). Should not
it solve problem? If not, then why?
- I credited the original author of BackWord. You didn't the original author of KitaDic. Isn't it simple enough? Once again, no creditting string in whatever I can search.

3) All projects, FastDic, BackWord, KitaDic, Wikilook are open source and
released under terms of GPL.  It is right of any user to look into source code,
modify it and distribute it under terms of GPL. And that is basic right.
- GPL has rules. It requires crediting original authors. And you didn't.

4) GNU GPL require every copy of software to carry an appropriate copyright
notice in developer name.
Please check: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit  It is a
helpful link to understand requirement. Or, please read GPL itself. That was
done using files WikiLook.xul (for WikiLook) and KitaDic.xul (for KitaDic). We
both in fact credited the original author that started this mess with FastDic
extension back in 2004. The guy name Kwon Jung Hyuk. I copy pasted that
statement directly from KitaDic.xul into WikiLook.xul. We (Oh Ki-Tae and
myself) also credited ourselves.

- The link you provided says:
Q) I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL? 
A) You can certainly get credit for the work. 

By the way, I just copied GPL license text from Kwon Jung Hyuk's FasdDic. Actually he is not a contributor. The one you need to give credit is not other guys but me, because your fork was initiated from mine. And you didn't.

5) WikiLook is a huge improvement over KitaDic. With most code rewritten. It
would not take long to realize it if you try to actually use add-ons. KitaDic
never reached state, when you can call it being "usable". 
- Don't tell lies here. We can compare source codes. 99% structure is identical, variable names changed, small event adjustments. However, it doesn't justify anything. The fact is you violated copyright law.

See http://www.autohotkey.net/~TePe/kita2.PNG . This is what I'm trying to tell other people in *WIKIPEDIA* about "TestPilot"'s copyright imfringement. 

"Even perfectly knowing I don't have to."? Seems you have no hope.

Comment 4

[Kitae Oh]

FYI, anyone interested, plz visit
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4800 KitaDic
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7675 WikiLook

Comment 5

[[e-mail]]

>>Oh Ki-Tae was credited as developer since WikiLook 1.0 realize under
developer section.
>There is no such section nor my contact
>nor "KitaDic" in WikiLook addon page, dev website, source code, and packing nfo
>files.

Stop lying!!! Download and install any version WikiLook(English language parser), FrenchLook(French language parser) or RusLook(Russian language parser) version 1.3.2 or below (created before your nonsense attack). Go Tools-->Add-ons-->Right click "WikiLook"/"FrenchLook"/"RusLook". Select "About" menu. 

Rest of lies and fullish excuses not worth replying. You indeed used original  code or deviated code originally created by Kwon Jung Hyuk. You credited him as original contributor. So did I. And you were lying all the way down to your last posting that I was not mentioned him. 

Furthermore, your code are not in any way better or worth more or less credit then code from any other open source GPL projects that also directly or indirectly contributed to my WikiLook\RusLook\FrenchLook projects. That include FastDic and BackWord. I will remove you from "About" menu since you don't use it to credit anyone but yourself.

And STOP running vandalization bot!!! :[[[ 
RIDICULOUS.

Comment 6

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

I've looked at the three extensions in question - KitaDic, WikiLook, and Backword.

First of all, it's extremely disturbing and disappointing to me that rather than handle a copyright infringement concern civilly, someone would go to the effort of writing a script to deface a Wikipedia page and be so hostile, and to then indicate no willingness to cooperate with a "Never reply."

Having said that and looked at the source of all the extensions involved:
1) I see that WikiLook had Kita listed as a contributor in install.rdf prior to the current version 1.3.3. In 1.3.3, this was removed, and the following lines were added to wikilook.js:
 * Acknowledgement
 * WikiLook based on source code and inspired by KitaDic extantion [http://kita.springnote.com/pages/33913]
 * KitaDic extension itself heavily relies on the source code of BackWord extension [www.gneheix.com]
1.3.3 makes no mention of Kita in the wikilook.xul GPL header, only TestPilot (Vitall) and the author of Backword.

2) KitaDic has this in kitadic.js:
 * Acknowledgement
 * This extension heavily relies on the source code of BackWord extension [www.gneheix.com]
In kitadic.xul, the GPL header has Kita and the author of Backword credited.

Looking at the source of the .xul file, it does look like WikiLook took KitaDic's and made changes, and KitaDic took Backword's and made changes. It doesn't look like WikiLook took the file directly from Backword, so KitaDic should be credited in WikiLook's GPL header but is not.

But the bigger issue is that there's only one file in Backword that says it's under GPL, and it's a JavaScript file. So the GPL header was added by Kita to a copyrighted file from Backword and made to be GPL when it was not originally.

Because this has turned into a complex copyright dispute, anyone wishing to assert their copyright and have an add-on removed from the site will need to submit to Mozilla a DMCA notice as instructed at the bottom of this page: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/legal.html

There's nothing I can do now without permission from Mozilla Legal. I would ask that the childish reviews and Wikipedia defacing stop, and I will delete any duplicate reviews posted on addons.mozilla.org.

Comment 7

[Kitae Oh]

First of all, I need to say I also feel **** for those happenings around the
extensions.

AMO's reply on our conversation says that we both have done wrong somehow.

As I said, I examined the source code and legal notices of your extensions and
couldn't find any clue to my contact nor KitaDic. But yesterday,I saw the
"About" window message generated by install.rdf, which puts my name (without
contact) describing me as a "contributor". Even after I found this message, the
situation is still not quite acceptable.

Technically, I'm not a contributor of your extension. The "contributor" conveys
the idea that I have actively helped the development of the extension as a team
member. As clear as it is, I'm not a dev team member. "Contributor" will
produce misconceptions from the wikilook users, and I'm not comfortable with it
at all.

However, let's wrap up and settle this situation.

In my extension script & documents, there are creditting statements to the
BackWord extension. Even on the Long Description page of KitaDic in AMO, I
clearly mention that this extension is a fork from BackWord. Even In Korean
explanation page http://kita.springnote.com/pages/33913 , the first paragraph
acknowledges BackWord extension.

I believe the way you have credited me is far from convincing.
I'm totally okay with your extension going without my name as a "contributor"
on About window.
But I hope you put more clear & visible info about the origin of your extension
by providing the contact of the original auhor, and the name of the original
extension, and I believe that's the way developers should honor the original
authors who have provided the initial start. Creditting is not difficult, but
if it's done insincerely, sure is trouble.

If you think over and do what you can, I promise I'll put no more malicious
messages in your personal spaces nor in extension pages as to the dispute we
are having now. And I'll ask the AMO authority to get my review comments
removed from your extension page.

PS. I didn't make vadanlizing bot. That's just hot air. And I'm a man.

Comment 8

[[e-mail]]

Uploaded WL 1.3.4.

Updated WikiLook.xul
*added - Kita <[e-mail]>

I got that string from KitaDic.xul. Should I use real e-mail/real name? Not sure.

Updated WikiLook.js. 
It reads: 
 * WikiLook heavily relies on the source code of KitaDic extantion [http://kita.springnote.com/pages/33913]
 * KitaDic extension itself heavily relies on the source code of BackWord extension [www.gneheix.com]

Is ot ok now? http://kita.springnote.com is there. "KitaDic" there too. Should I add real name/e-mail? Nickname/nevermailme? Would you prefer other changes?

Comment 9

[Kitae Oh]

I sincerely thank Justin Scott for his concern, his precious time spent on analyzing those source codes, and the 3rd person's view from him on this eccentric case which falls out of mozilla bug issues. Without Justin's moderation, I & Vitall might be lost in contentions and have kept disrupting this channel shamelessly.

I believe this case has reached a common ground. Seems now I & Vitall need to stop posting here not to interfere with this site's purpose. I'll reply to Vitall via email about my ideas on decent creditting requirement, and conversation after on had better be in personal communication channels.

Comment 10

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

Verified