Add Internal Temperature usermod

[dima-zhemkov]

No description provided.

[softhack007]

Is this the usermod from @lost-hope, or is it different?
MoonModules#51

[dima-zhemkov]

Is this the usermod from @lost-hope, or is it different? MoonModules#51

It's based on corresponding usermod from MoonModules.

[softhack007]

Please clarify code ownership with @lost-hope, who created the same usermod in the MM fork. I would prefer to have clear attribution of the code origin.

[blazoncek]

If this is the case of duplicate PR in different forks, it exactly shows why I prefer authors make PRs into upstream first.
If the PR is rejected then PR into other forks.
/cc @softhack007 @lost-hope

[lost-hope]

@blazoncek i PRed it into MM since it was requested by someone there. So why make a PR in AC, when it then has to be cherry picked into MM, when i could deliver it directly to MM for him.

@dima-zhemkov it is ok here (not a lot of special and hard code in it), but you should ask the creator first instead of "getting caught.

@softhack007 see above ;D

[blazoncek]

So why make a PR in AC, when it then has to be cherry picked into MM

Cherry picking only happens if there are conflicts or the maintainer doesn't want certain commits/code in their fork.

[dima-zhemkov]

@lost-hope I haven't "got caught" since I haven't broken any agreement. MIT license allows me to copy/reuse/modify any code from MoonModules/WLED repository without any additional permission of authors of that code as soon as a copy of the MIT license is in a destination repository. And I copied, literally, 5 lines of your code.
@softhack007 why did you ask me to clarify code ownership if you knew that it's under MIT license?

[softhack007]

@softhack007 why did you ask me to clarify code ownership if you knew that it's under MIT license?

@dima-zhemkov It could have been that @lost-hope already agreed with you for offering his work to upstream, and you actually agreed to maintain the code he created. That's what I did not know so I asked for clarification of ownership.

I'm not a layer, so let me say it this way: there is a difference between "what's not forbidden" vs. "what is the right thing to do". Instead of doing whatever is legally possible, in open source its important to respect the people who give their source code for free, knowing that there is no copyright, license fees or patents. Even when MIT looks like "free beer", it is not.

For me, taking source code from someone else (and its not just 5 lines, its >95% of total lines of code), without giving credit to the author, is not the right way. In open source we are very interested to know "where is it from". In the end, Its a matter of "code of conduct". In that sense, yes you got caught for violating "implied rules". I hope you'll do better next time.

Technically, now that we have the statement from @lost-hope, I understand he is agreeing that you submit your work and his part together, and we can proceed with this PR.

[dima-zhemkov]

@softhack007 so I should have merely mention name of the author in a description?

[softhack007]

See detailed code comments.

[blazoncek]

As far as I am concerned this is ok.
@lost-hope do you agree with this PR? I see you are credited.
@softhack007 do you have any more objections?

[lost-hope]

Fine with me

[softhack007]

Somehow my last review was lost after force-push 🙄 by @dima-zhemkov

Sometimes commits can disappear after a force-push.

Ok for me with the latest changes.

Seems that the function for reading -S3 or -C3 sensors was lost? Well so be it - could be added after merge.