Not to nitpick, but you certainly can assert copyright on a specific chart, regardless of the information it’s based on. Someone else is free to create their own chart based on the same data, but can’t literally copy and use someone else’s chart.
That’s about all the interest I have in this ridiculous drama. I just want to make shit (but not charts).
You are correct. My only comment would be ‘why the hell would you even bring up copyrights?’ It’s just stupid and he’s grasping at straws. Now I am happy I didn’t friend him on Facebook. Why he even thought I would accept his request is beyond me. I have had no contact with him. Outside of maybe replying to a post or thread here on Talk.
Stranger danger comes to mind with this guy.
Actually it is not eligible for copyright.
“Just because something took effort to create does not mean it is subject to copyright protection. Facts, data, and the representations of those facts and data are excellent examples of things that require much “sweat of the brow” to create, but yet still do not receive copyright protection.”
Did not know that.
It’s weird that Mark would care so much about copyright now, he certainly doesn’t seem to care for it with his GitHub. Many of his repositories are straight up copies from other projects with the name changed. Note that these aren’t forks, but totally new git repos with none of the original commit history.
Here’s a few examples:
Mark’s Repo: https://github.com/mrhavens/pidoc
Source Repo: https://github.com/lukechilds/dockerpi
Appears to be an obfuscated rip of Luke Child’s dockerpi, actually left some of the license files unchanged.
https://github.com/mrhavens/pidoc/commit/895b771c7868e1dc6dddb57f185442b59d48769f#diff-3254677a7917c6c01f55212f86c57fbf
Mark’s Repo: https://github.com/mrhavens/Dedockify
Source Repo: https://github.com/LanikSJ/dfimage
Appears to be another obfuscated rip, “graciously” includes LanikSJ in the license file though.
Mark’s Repo: https://github.com/mrhavens/GANaffect
Source Repo: https://github.com/donydchen/ganimation_replicate
More dishonesty by Mark…
@LAndras - Sorry you were caught up in more monkey business by Mark. You were the member I referred to in my post above about the one person I was thinking of voting for, before I saw you on that web site.
You aren’t the only person Mark has abused for his personal gain. Look deep in the past of DMS and you’ll see where he put DMS itself and other people down as prinicpals on a business filing with the state. Some data around that is up higher in this thread. Unfortunately, you most likely won’t be the last he’ll do that to. 
Raymond
Interesting. It looks like my post in the FB comments listing Mark as a current BoD candidate with a specific political views, and therefore the data, graphs, and labels may be biased, has been removed. Even more interesting is that Mark had initially given my post a like, and replied to it thanking me for the post.
That chart is misleading, the left axis is about half the range, right axis is full scale starting at zero.
There are so many things in Mark Havens chart that are misleading… He’s not going to defend them because his only intent was to gaslight us.
He’s already produced two other videos, neither of which addresses the stuff he is “working on” in this video.
I only see 4 at that site, can you tell me who the fifth is?
Covered here:
More disingenuous B.S. from Mark Havens and an Anonymous commenter. There are some points where their assessment of the membership culture changes are correct. However that is on those members to make DMS what they want. How do you get what you want? Participate in the election and more importantly, chip in to make DMS what you want.
Not sure why this person is anonymous but it is pretty obvious who he is as he comments on a complaint that was dismissed. Mark tries to lead these people to answer questions in a certain way but often they are much more truthful than the host. I certainly do not have a problem listening and trying to understand their position. Keep them coming!
Listen and make up your own mind.
Here are some highlight quotes:
4:45
Interviewee says:
“Nobody will teach a class unless they have $50 or a $100 bucks coming their way.”
This is something we have actively been trying to address. There are multiple threads about it on talk. We have listened to the membership and made adjustments to the honorarium system that are financially sound and encourage more teaching.
Here is one of the current threads:
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/crazy-dumb-honorarium-idea/72421/10
There are many others to choose from.
Mark is implying that we are not addressing this concern and that’s just a lie.
The issues with the calendar system and honorarium the interviewee is describing happened 2.5 years ago, and have long been addressed with both improved code and improved process. Mark knows this, his fellow candidate reply Max is a prolific teacher who has no issues using the system and collecting honorarium for himself and the committee.
At 10:20 Mark says it shouldn’t be a second job, I don’t work all day to go work at the makerspace.
Excuse me? What on earth does he think it means to serve on a volunteer board?
The amount of tasks the board faces every day is a second job. We do it for free because we love the space and the community.
I have no idea what he expects is going to happen should he get on the board but I think this is clear indication of what the Dallas makerspace will get from him on the board.
That should be their slogan “I don’t work all day, just to go work at the makerspace!”
Their trolling is insulting to the directors and officers who work every day to keep the makerspace open, welcoming and safe for it’s members.
We don’t dispute he’s been here since the beginning, but as it’s been pointed out by many of the people who were there and involved, it was a group effort that began well before him and well before the paperwork.
To claim principal founder is just more evidence of that creepy/slimy feeling.
I Beg to differ. I’ve somehow managed to host two dozen classes and events without ever taking a dollar in Honorarium for myself: it ALL went back to the committees. Some were non-Honorarium events and this only counts items which I submitted to the Calendar - it doesn’t count Open Forges I attended but which others added To the Calendar or ad hoc training which never even made it to the Calendar at all.
I know other Members are similarly giving o their time and teach without ever accepting the Honorarium for themselves.
The filed Form 1023 does not, those 5 board members listed in the attachment are the first elected board.
To clarify, the address Mark put down under his name on the filling isn’t his personal address or anything like that, it’s the address of the space we were already renting and using. Mark sent in the paperwork because he volunteered to.
I feel like in my previous comments I may have come across as if I don’t acknowledge Mark’s early contributions to the space. He did a lot of work especially on the admin/finance side. He just didn’t found the space.
Did Mark say, “a principal founder” or “the principal founder” in that video? I can’t tell. Not that I really care about any of this.
I don’t know what “principal founder” even means. People usually use the term “founding members” to describe the early crew. It sounds like he’s trying to land on a term that implies he was the sole founder without using those exact words.
In every business I’ve worked at a principal is the main stakeholder of the line of business. They supply the vision and direction for the whole line of business they are in charge of.
That’s the offensive part to me, it’s clear from the published history and the people here who were there then, that it was a group effort. Everyone, even Mark, deserves equal credit.
Now a decade later he’s trying to play it off that he was the “principal” founder. Like it was his vision and his leadership that guided all of his assistants to build this place. He never outright says it, he just implies it to gaslight everyone who was there or who questions his version of history.