I think the problem is that we are arguing two different things here. You are arguing that Martin committed a crime and acted like a douchebag. I agree 100% with this. I am in no way trying to defend Martin's copyright infringement. What Martin did was wrong and Zed had every right to ask him to take down the book.
What I am trying to argue is that Martin wasn't being malicious, he made an honest (albeit stupid) mistake. It sounds like he believed that Zed would be thrilled that someone was extending LPTHW to Ruby and didn't realize he was committing copyright infringement in the process. To be clear this in no way excuses him from the consequences.
I am drawing this conclusion from the following: Martin acknowledged Zed's authorship and that Martin contacted Zed to let him know about the project. I am also speculating that Martin was ignorant of the licensing and assumed a permissive license. LPTHW is distributed for free (as in beer) and Zed has released a lot of other things for free (as in freedom). It's not that much of a stretch to see how someone could assuming that this "free" book was open.
Zed had every right to ask Martin to stop writing the book. I don't feel that calling Martin "classless" was called for however, given that Martin seems to be a Zed fanboy of sorts.
For some reason you seem to think that I am arguing that Zed is 100% in the wrong. I am not. I'm just saying that both acted in a manner that is unbecoming of civilized people.
As an analogy, let's say I wrote some fan-fiction based on a story I really like. In the process I copied too much of the original source. I publish it on my blog and e-mail the author of the story a link to it, thinking that the author will excited to know that she inspired me to write and will maybe enjoy seeing a different take on her work.
Instead calls me classless for not writing my own original story and tells me to remove it from my blog.
While she has every right to ask me to remove it considered I'd copied too much of the original work, I wasn't trying to offend her - just the opposite in fact!
Was I wrong? Yes, of course. I posted her copyrighted story on my blog. Was I classless? I would argue no - my intent wasn't to write an original story, but to extend a story that I loved.
At this point, I might be tempted to call her out for calling me classless (which I really shouldn't do, and Martin did), but it's easy to see how I could feel that way. A simple "please remove this" would have been sufficient, I would have realized my error and I wouldn't feel bitter about the exchange.
TL;DR - There is a difference between being ethically wrong and legally wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.
No, your problem is that you're unwilling to acknowledge that Edme committed an intentional act that was wrong - and that Shaw didn't. Shaw's mildly harsh reaction to Edme's act does not make him "the bad guy", and it does not even make him "a bad guy" or "one of the bad guys in this situation".
I'm really disturbed by the mentality that Edme and his supporters, including you, have put forward: if you do something wrong, that should be instantly forgivable, and anyone showing any anger or disapproval towards you is at least as wrong as you are. I think it shows up in worse cases than this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1880467
Edme has at least twigged that most other people aren't buying it. I've no idea when you will clue in, but I'm not responding to you further on this issue.
Alright, I know you said you are not responding further, but you are misinterpreting what I am saying. At no point have I been unwilling to acknowledge that Martin committed an intentional act that was wrong. I am not saying that Zed is at least as wrong, not even close. The most wrong person in the entire exchange is Martin. I've clearly failed to communicate this to you and I apologize.
I'm just trying to say that when people make mistakes they should be corrected, but correcting them politely is more effective. I think this is especially true when the person who made the mistake looks up to you.
You are free to disagree with that, but please stop putting words in my mouth.
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, you have just said that Zed's response was "mildly harsh". It looks like we agree with each other. I think Martin committed copyright infringement and that Zed's response was mildly harsh (I think I initially used the word "rude").
