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

Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

#111

Post by loginx »

choppaface wrote: post #77

Wow I've never seen so many fake accounts on a HN post before. So then is it fair to say the Github stars for this project could also perhaps be artificially inflated? This month they started to go exponential: https://github.com/langgenius/dify?tab=readme-ov-file#star-h...

Well, I think a lot of the uptick happened last week because that's when it was published in the Toughtworks Tech Radar for this quarter. The audience is large, presumably larger than HN, and that's how I found out about it and have been toying with it since then. I have no idea what I'm doing, but as far as I can tell, this seems like a legitimate project.

Re: Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

#112

Post by waldrews »

mdaniel wrote: post #94

> https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/main/LICENSE everyone is apparently a license pioneer

Yeah, that's kind of weird - Apache, except totally not Apache. They probably meant to do a source-available license with free non-commercial use allowing inbound contributions - makes sense for a startup, but... please get a lawyer and clean it up :).

Re: Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

#113

Post by sdesol »

loginx wrote: post #111
choppaface wrote: post #77

Wow I've never seen so many fake accounts on a HN post before. So then is it fair to say the Github stars for this project could also perhaps be artificially inflated? This month they started to go exponential: https://github.com/langgenius/dify?tab=readme-ov-file#star-h...

Well, I think a lot of the uptick happened last week because that's when it was published in the Toughtworks Tech Radar for this quarter. The audience is large, presumably larger than HN, and that's how I found out about it and have been toying with it since then. I have no idea what I'm doing, but as far as I can tell, this seems like a legitimate project.

This aligns with what you said:

https://devboard.gitsense.com/langgenius?id=4d1dec9067&r=lan...

I created insights for the last 4 weeks and number of new contributors and stars peaked last week. This project has all the signs of a successfully organically grown project.

Re: Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

#116

Post by guchenhe »

thomasfromcdnjs wrote: post #47

What kind of people are using this AI dev platforms? When do they become better then just rolling your own custom code?

I work on Dify.

what we're trying do with Dify currently is to let people put together prototypes quicker and either get to production or fail at a faster rate.

we've seen it being helpful for non-technical folks to collaborate on a project well (e.g. importing documents for knowledge base, creating no-code workflow apps, etc)

Re: Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

#119

Post by jeswin »

> Dify is licensed under the Apache License 2.0, with the following additional conditions ...

I am totally fine with closed-source/commercial licenses, but please don't do a "Like Apache 2.0 but not really" type of license. It just confuses everyone.

You can pick from SSPL, BSL, Elastic license among others if you don't want to roll out your own.

> 2. As a contributor, you should agree that: a. The producer can adjust the open-source agreement to be more strict or relaxed as deemed necessary. b. Your contributed code may be used for commercial purposes, including but not limited to its cloud business operations.

This is not very contributor-friendly.

You could consider keeping an open-source core, and extensions for paid features.

Re: Dify, a visual workflow to build/test LLM applications

#120

Post by sandGorgon »

jeswin wrote: post #119

> Dify is licensed under the Apache License 2.0, with the following additional conditions ... I am totally fine with closed-source/commercial licenses, but please don't do a "Like Apache 2.0 but not really" type of license. It just confuses everyone. You can pick from SSPL, BSL, Elastic license among others if you don't want to roll out your own. > 2. As a contributor, you should agree that: a. The producer can adjus…

genuine question - out of the closed-source/commercial licenses, which ones are the most developer friendly ?
Post reply on HN