Programmer orders Conroy to remove bastardised website code

Renai LeMay
03 March 2010, 1:01 PM


A software developer has cried foul over what he says is misuse of his code on Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s web site.


A software developer who claims to have written the code behind the controversial tag cloud widget on the website of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s web site has cried foul over what he sees as misuse of his tool.

Conroy’s tag cloud uses a variable font size to display the most popular topics on his site. But it was revealed last week that the phrase “ISP filtering” had been removed from the possible topics. The removal is significant because of the controversial nature of the Federal Government’s mandatory ISP-based filtering plans, which Conroy is spearleading.

In a blog post, Aleks Bochniak, who appears to be based in the UK but was previously employed by a range of Australian organizations such as Griffith University, said he resented what appeared to be the removal of credits from Conroy’s code and wanted the whole thing removed from the site.

“Dear Minister Conroy,” he wrote on his blog, “I would appreciate it if you could remove my JavaScript tag cloud from your website. I do not want in any way to be associated with yourself, your office or your policies. Removal of my code from your website is the only way to achieve this.” He has written

News.com.au has reported that the credits were removed from the code, along with the name of the person who changed it – although it noted that one name was removed at the request of family members for personal reasons.

“Appropriate credit should have been left in place,” wrote Bochniak. “I don’t want to take credit from what they’ve done, far from it. But this is one usage of my code which I would have appreciated them asking my permission, because if I had known the final outcome I would not have let them.”

The news comes as debate around the internet filtering project continues to be heard around the nation, with the legislation to introduce the scheme scheduled to be introduced into parliament shortly.

Greens communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam on Sunday predicted the legislation would have to wait until after the next federal election, due to what he said was a “constipated” Senate, with, he claimed, the Opposition determined to “block everything” passing through the upper house.

And on Friday Prime Minister Kevin Rudd threw more wood on the fiery debate, saying the Government wouldn’t apologise for pushing ahead with the initiative.

Delimiter


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Phred (User):

I wonder if the Minister will pay heed to the request...

03 March 2010, 1:41 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Doubt it... He will probably get Kevin to defiantly make no appologies.

03 March 2010, 11:57 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Zig (New user):

It is bad enough that Conroy's office amended the javascript code to mislead Australians.
Now it turns out his office, by removing the credits, effectively used the code without the author's permission. I think that is called theft.

03 March 2010, 9:29 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting Zig:
I think that is called theft.


Pretty sure it would be copyright infringement, which is different. But you're right. Unless he Public Domained it, Conroy's staff either breached a contract or violated copyright. ;-)

04 March 2010, 12:01 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (User):

the problem is, most code like that is supplied under the OpenGl licensing agrrements(if i remembered the name of it correctly)
It states that the code is free to be used, but not edited, and must contain the credits to the contributing owner. At the owner's request, the code can/must be removed.

i'll pull up a link to it after work tonight. Technically it is theft, but to a lower degree

07 March 2010, 2:49 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

I think you're thinking of GPL. And GPL only requires that source be available (scripts obviously only exist as source anyway) and the original authors be credited.

Assuming the source was GPLed to start with, they simply need to add the authors name to the code, and say it's based on his work.
If however the code was never released under a re-use licensed, the author has every right to demand it be removed.

07 March 2010, 4:44 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (User):

Quoting Tin:
think you're thinking of GPL. And GPL only requires that source be available (scripts obviously only exist as source anyway) and the original authors be credited.

Assuming the source was GPLed to start with, they simply need to add the authors name to the code, and say it's based on his work.
If however the code was never released under a re-use licensed, the author has every right to demand it be removed.



yeah. thats what most internet based source code is put under, that way it protects the original developers/artists under similar rights that copyright laws give

ill have another browse tonight, but if i remember correctly, the original artist does have the right to ask the code to be removed under certain GPL licenses


07 March 2010, 4:53 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user