Ask HN: Please review my docs site • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Please review my docs site

#11

Post by remram » Sun, May 22, 2022, 7:10 PM UTC

lab wrote: post #10

remram wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.npmjs.com/package/plasmo claims it's MIT. Bait and switch? Comes with ToS too. What the hell is going on there.

Technically, the compiled source published to NPM is MIT licensed (it's minified JS), and the end-user can reverse-engineer it however they like. MIT license does not mean human-readable source afaik :p ^ j/k fyi, since your comment sounded serious so I just wanted to ease the tension. We're planning to open-source the repo, but ATM we have not set up everything to welcome the community yet (CoC, contribution guideli…

My problem with this is that you are asking us for free review of a tool that you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.

Surely you can see the problem with that.

You are also vastly misrepresenting the contents of your ToS here, which actually contain a binding arbitration clause and this unbelievable gem: "you agree not to [...] disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the SERVICE"

Re: Ask HN: Please review my docs site

#12

Post by lab » Sun, May 22, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

remram wrote: post #11

lab wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the compiled source published to NPM is MIT licensed (it's minified JS), and the end-user can reverse-engineer it however they like. MIT license does not mean human-readable source afaik :p ^ j/k fyi, since your comment sounded serious so I just wanted to ease the tension. We're planning to open-source the repo, but ATM we have not set up everything to welcome the community yet (CoC, contribution guideli…

My problem with this is that you are asking us for free review of a tool that you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed. Surely you can see the problem with that. You are also vastly misrepresenting the contents of your ToS here, which actually contain a binding arbitration clause and this unbelievable gem: "you agree not to [...] disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/…

> you are asking us for free review of a tool

No, just the docs site - Please and thank you :)

> you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.

I do not get your argument. The MIT license is not a consumer-right protection license, it is a license made to protect us, developers, from having to deal with hostile actors. Nowhere in the license does it says the developer is required or responsible for disclosing the source in a human-readable form. It simply says the user can use it for free, that the developer is not responsible and there is no warranty.

> this unbelievable gem

Why is it an unbelievable gem? I do not see why it is different from MIT's "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."? Also, thanks for parsing thru the TOS - I created it from a template, thus haven't gotten around to actually making sure it makes sense (i.e a TOS is made to protect me and my company so it made sense to me to just keep anything that would prevent legal trouble).

Re: Ask HN: Please review my docs site

#13

Post by remram » Sun, May 22, 2022, 11:28 PM UTC

lab wrote: post #12

remram wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with this is that you are asking us for free review of a tool that you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed. Surely you can see the problem with that. You are also vastly misrepresenting the contents of your ToS here, which actually contain a binding arbitration clause and this unbelievable gem: "you agree not to [...] disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/…

> you are asking us for free review of a tool No, just the docs site - Please and thank you :) > you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed. I do not get your argument. The MIT license is not a consumer-right protection license, it is a license made to protect us, developers, from having to deal with hostile actors. Nowhere in the license does it says the developer is required or responsible f…

Of course you don't...

Re: Ask HN: Please review my docs site

#14

Post by lab » Mon, May 23, 2022, 2:45 AM UTC

remram wrote: post #13

lab wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are asking us for free review of a tool No, just the docs site - Please and thank you :) > you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed. I do not get your argument. The MIT license is not a consumer-right protection license, it is a license made to protect us, developers, from having to deal with hostile actors. Nowhere in the license does it says the developer is required or responsible f…

Of course you don't...

I am a developer, not a lawyer. I also do not understand why it was necessary for you to talk down to me? As strangers, your absence of patience, kindness, and courtesy makes you sound hostile, and frankly rude.

I can appreciate your passion for open source. Perhaps you feel that your behavior is justified because you are protecting something near and dear to your heart. However, please recall that we are both flesh and blood human beings, we make mistakes, we fix them, and we both deserve respect and decency.

All in all, I hope to see you with more kindness in the future. Thanks in advance!

P.s: technically, I can be a fridge. But then again, you would be being rude to a fridge :p

Re: Ask HN: Please review my docs site

#15

Post by remram » Mon, May 23, 2022, 3:38 AM UTC

lab wrote: post #14

remram wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you don't...

I am a developer, not a lawyer. I also do not understand why it was necessary for you to talk down to me? As strangers, your absence of patience, kindness, and courtesy makes you sound hostile, and frankly rude. I can appreciate your passion for open source. Perhaps you feel that your behavior is justified because you are protecting something near and dear to your heart. However, please recall that we are both flesh…

I am not kind? I did not disparage or misrepresent anything, and I did not make you sign a legal document to read my content either. I pointed out objective problems that you could easily have addressed at any point instead of doubling down.

Instead you are choosing to take offense, personally call me names, invent a flat-out crazy definition for "open source", stated that there's no difference between the MIT license and your consumer-hostile ToS (licenses are not ToS!), and try to justify your 17 pages of legalese (the most far-reaching I have ever read) by the fact that you are "not a lawyer". You know what not-lawyers don't do?

You could have "shown kindness" a few comments back by fixing the metadata of your NPM package, give any indication that the ToS were a mistake and would be fixed, or offer any sign at all that you were in fact "a flesh and blood human being" who fixes their mistakes.

I am not making you appear like a copyright troll. Feel free to stop at any time.