Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Day AppGet Died

keivan.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 566 posts

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#161

Post by chii »

harry8 wrote: post #139

Re-licensee all your appget code as GPL v3. Everything about it. It might put the wind up them a little. They hate GPL. Good example of the strength of the GPL for projects you want to be open and don't want mega-corp to embrace and close. BSD, MIT etc if you're fine with that being done for the project. There are other dimensions for licensing, this is just one consideration of many in your decision.

You cannot retroactively relicense code - only new code. Microsoft can just take the last version that's not GPL.

This is why if i were making an open source project, it will start off with GPLv3, with a commercial paid license if anyone wants to avoid the terms of the GPL. That gives the best of both worlds - open access to anyone, and if they want to modify, they must also be willing to contribute in some way.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#162

Post by monksy »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #145
monksy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guilt by association. This kind of behavior stifles innovation and attempts to limit what people can do.

Not to me, but to some people, definitely. I was about to hire a guy and discussing him with the president, it came up that he was into ASICs for crypto mining (years before it was a big thing)... president didn’t like it, figured the guy to be a get rich quick type and through his direction we passed over hiring him. Turns out in this case, it was a good call, but right or wrong it was enough to push the guy back in…

You passed up a guy that had an interest outside your business and that was extremely technical?

I can understand the justifications for culture fit, however, to me it sounds like you passed over someone because he was ambitious outside of work. That's fine if that's your culture, but you should consider that as a red flag.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#163

Post by chii »

neatze wrote: post #103
boromi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Afterall his AppGet package was open source....

What point exactly are you trying to make ?

The post was trying to imply that because the project was open source, it's a free-for-all for microsoft to just take and modify for their own needs. And that is exactly what happened.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#164

Post by comex »

alpb wrote: post #91

There are parts of Microsoft that understand open source. Most parts of the Windows team ain’t that (exceptions apply). Reading this saddens me a lot as he clearly got screwed. But this is why any project with momentum should consider growing its community and maybe forming a foundation. For example, Homebrew and its community/infrastructure is better than and bigger than anything Apple could ever do (and we know how…

> Did Microsoft ask Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza to bring Mono with them to kill/rename it? No, that’s not what happened.

Visual Studio for Mac is sort of a renamed version of MonoDevelop...

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#165

Post by mromanuk »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #142
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, it sounds like he did pursue. After some interviews Microsoft dropped contact.

Could these be a second side to the story that maybe he didn’t interview well or some other reason?

So, his product is a good fit for Microsoft, but he is not. I hope that’s not the case.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#166

Post by chii »

shp0ngle wrote: post #126
jasonhansel wrote: post #100

This is why it's important to license FOSS projects under the (A)GPL, rather than the MIT license. It makes it far less profitable for companies to steal your ideas/code, and ensures that anything based on your work will put users first.

They didn’t copy the code, just the APIs and ideas. In another words, if ideas were copyrighted, GNU/Linux wouldn’t exist.

Their lawyers will have a hard time justifying that none of the original source was used to create their new win-get project, given that the author of appget has met with the engineering team directly.

So if it were GPL, microsoft would likely need to license their new winget project under GPL, which would be a win/win for open source.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#167

Post by kayone »

alasdair_ wrote: post #141
intern4tional wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but if he did and hadn't heard back I would have expected him to note that he asked. It's a significant thing to not note.

He mentions this at the bottom of the article. He followed up and continue to get radio silence, even to the point that HR ignored his request for reimbursable expenses.

To clarify, they did fix the reimbursement issue but ignored the interview update issue.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#168

Post by chii »

hnick wrote: post #159
leonidasv wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL is as strict as GPL. It's just that GPL allows you to modify the source, serve them as a web application and not have to disclose the code. AGPL addresses that by putting code distributed as a web application in the same category as compiled code.

If my web server calls out to AGPL software (such as executing a transform on a PDF using Ghostscript) as an external binary is this covered even though the AGPL code is not directly compiled, linked or modified? I'd assume so otherwise it would be a very easy loophole and code could be firewalled into separate modules but I'm not sure what exact language covers this in the license.

It's untested in court.

GCC is written specifically to prevent this sort of firewalling of the compiler to prevent it from being plugged into another piece of software and avoid GPL requirements.

Re: The Day AppGet Died

#169

Post by chii »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #119
tracker1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course with all/most US routers generally taking only signed ROMs, it's mostly useless to even have the code. I wish they'd just create something closer to tomato than the flashy, less useful interfaces.

That problem is called TiVoization. It’s addressed with the 3rd version of the GPL. Sadly, Linus is adamantly against that clause.

> Linus is adamantly against that clause.

oh i didnt know he was adamant against the clause - i thought that he didn't want to force it upon the many existing users of linux.

Post reply on HN