Lit-html: Please clarify historical relations to hyperHTML?

[AndyOGo]

This weekend I was a bit shocked to be honest, after I read The history of hyperHTML followed by lit-html by @WebReflection:
https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/ab43649d9e4a53ac900b5924c77a310e

I'm really surprised and wonder if this projected commits plagiarism of hyperHTML.
Please clarify the situation.

[WebReflection]

Hi @AndyOGo, I can clarify the situation for you, since I believe nobody in here would commit "_seppuku_" anyway.

• lit-html didn't commit plagiarism, it likely came out of very similar developers idea to use template literals tags
• lit-html went out with different concepts, where few of them are weaker, but few other are stronger, so that overall it's not a 1:1 drop-in replacement for hyperHTML
• I wrote that gist to underline that instead of helping an _incredibly similar_ Open Source project and its developer, at that time also trying to survive out of Patreon or OpenCollective, this team didn't bother at all, and went ahead full steam, even rarely mentioning the project that predated its own library concepts at least 6 months before

TL;DR That gist is about a sad story regarding modern Open Source dynamics, but it doesn't want to claim plagiarism from Google, it simply wants to underline how similar were the ideas, and how this team avoided any sort of reach/cooperation whatsoever.

---

P.S. I've even filed bugs in here instead, and helped them resolving a few 🤷‍♂️

[AndyOGo]

Thanks for your real quick clarification @WebReflection .
Honestly I was quite irritated, all fine now.

[justinfagnani]

@AndyOGo Personally, I'd love to comment more but professionally I can't.