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

Wasmer and Trademarks

wasmer.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#21

Post by tptacek »

syrusakbary wrote: post #18
tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is. Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.

> Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is Not sure if I agree with this. Obscure systems are usually harder to hack as they require an extra effort on discoverability that open systems don't have. Easier to exploit != more exploitable. One is about the threshold to discover an exploit, the other is about the total exploitable bugs. In my view, the "hackability level" is the same f…

Most people would say that reducing the threshold to discover security bugs is a good thing.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#22

Post by burnte »

csomar wrote: post #6

> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Weba…

Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#23

Post by burnte »

tptacek wrote: post #21
syrusakbary wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is Not sure if I agree with this. Obscure systems are usually harder to hack as they require an extra effort on discoverability that open systems don't have. Easier to exploit != more exploitable. One is about the threshold to discover an exploit, the other is about the total exploitable bugs. In my view, the "hackability level" is the same f…

Most people would say that reducing the threshold to discover security bugs is a good thing.

Security through obscurity is not security. The source WAS open, any bugs in it then are still discoverable. Opening source can actually make things more secure, the whole "many eyes" thing.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#24

Post by TobyTheDog123 »

hhh wrote: post #5

Amazing levels of transparency in this statement, which feels like a breath of fresh air to read in terms of clarity and openness. Will have to check out Wasmer :)

These obviously-ingenuine replies only add to the continuing distrust of Wasmer, by the way.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#25

Post by TobyTheDog123 »

tptacek wrote: post #11
wiqar wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

You probably shouldn't write comments like this on posts from your employer; it's an HN thing, people are very alert to conflicts of interest here. It's fine to comment on them, to add your own spin or opinion or whatever, but you should be careful about cheerleading comments.

I don't even give them the benefit of the doubt here, this is shameless. They don't disclose that Wasmer is their employer (you can find it from their comment history though), and pretend like they're a satisfied customer.

Absolutely disgusting.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#26

Post by kasey_junk »

burnte wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people would say that reducing the threshold to discover security bugs is a good thing.

Security through obscurity is not security. The source WAS open, any bugs in it then are still discoverable. Opening source can actually make things more secure, the whole "many eyes" thing.

The interesting thing in this argument is that the first person is positing axiomatically that closed source is more secure, the second person is positing that open/closed largely doesn’t matter and finally your position axiomatically is that open is more secured.

We’ve known since the 70s that you (provably) can’t trust source code. We know experientially that it’s easier to diagnose code than programs. We also know experientially that the teams involved have a dramatic effect on the security of the outcomes.

How will we ever decide which of our three contestants will win?

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#28

Post by enos_feedler »

initplus wrote: post #13

It's hard to escape the feeling that Wasmer is trying to hijack Webassembly for their own commercial advantage. Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime. It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "We…

“Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders”

Yup. WebAssembly is not a landgrab its an opportunity to build very cool things that embody the principles of the web. Use imagination. Build product. A package manager and a runtime is hardly inspiring.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#29

Post by eatonphil »

mfer wrote: post #7

> Wasmer, by necessity, design, and passion lives and breathes Wasm and open source. > As is dictated by our commitment to open source and the precedent of social alignment set by WebAssembly... > Although all these events still do not portray Wasmer in the best light, I hope they can at least assuage the understandable concerns of our community that we had acted in a way so fundamentally contrary to the values of op…

I don't think it's too reasonable to expect that every open-source-friendly company never releases a closed source project. Or at least I don't find it weird that an open-source-friendly company might have one closed source project. Their core project, wasmer, is open-source after all.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#30

Post by srcreigh »

slimsag wrote: post #10
mfer wrote: post #7

> Wasmer, by necessity, design, and passion lives and breathes Wasm and open source. > As is dictated by our commitment to open source and the precedent of social alignment set by WebAssembly... > Although all these events still do not portray Wasmer in the best light, I hope they can at least assuage the understandable concerns of our community that we had acted in a way so fundamentally contrary to the values of op…

There is nothing[0] suspicious[1] about[2] Wasmer. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28772863 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/o1838v/the_web... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24904829

> But you need to know that Wasmer and its sibling projects will stay free forever. We are open source lovers, all of us, and we have a strong background on working on open source projects before joining Wasmer too.

That's great. I'm sure the closed source paid 10x faster editions of the graphene Python GraphQL server written by Syrus "CEO of Graphene" and CEO of wasmer will be open sourced in this spirit.

https://github.com/graphql-python/graphene/issues/268#issuec...

http://graphql-quiver.com/

Post reply on HN