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

From where I left

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 472 posts

Re: From where I left

#251

Post by strbean »

snoman wrote: post #232
strbean wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wild to me that the prevailing opinion seems to be "It is only TRUE Open Source if megacorps can modify the software and resell it without sharing their modifications". The hosted vs. distributed loophole is just that, a loophole. If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little i…

Meanwhile, it’s wild to me that you seem to think open source means “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.”

That's not even remotely what I'm saying.

I'm saying if a company modifies open source software and distributes it, they should be required to distribute the modified source as well. I'm further claiming that providing a hosted service is a form of distribution.

> “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.”

Free for everyone, and if you make changes to improve it, and let others use the software you changed, you contribute those changes back. That's the basic principle of OSS, no?

Re: From where I left

#252

Post by langsoul-com »

Why say Claude is ahead of the rest? (I don't keep up to date, only using mainstream tools in ides)

Right now I use Amazon Q to buy integrate into phpstorm and its ok. It's free so a major advantage.

Is it just terms of using their chat models?

Re: From where I left

#253

Post by JamesSwift »

fishtoaster wrote: post #80

I'm really interested in this bit: "the fracture with the community is not about licensing, or at least it’s not mainly about licensing" I wish he'd elaborated a bit more on what he thought it was about. My understanding is that it's 100% about the license. That's certainly why I'll reach for valkey instead of redis next time I need it. That's also what I've heard from everyone else in a similar position. What else w…

Yeah, even if the split isnt entirely about licensing (and I do think it mainly is), the rest is a result of the licensing changes as well in terms of the implications and side-effects. Its the way people felt rug pulled and eroding the trust, which is now forever lost.

Re: From where I left

#254

Post by inopinatus »

collingreen wrote: post #210
inopinatus wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it would be, so I take issue with the extreme interpretation of the remark. These are merely two cases of foolishness. The first is of one’s choices not actually being in harmony with one’s preferences, the latter is simply a common cognitive bias. I’m not characterising talk of a “social contact” as malicious, but naive. Folks who want community obligations attached to their contributions can and probably s…

I'm ruffled by your repeated dismissals and arrogance BUT now I really want to name a pet redis so maybe you're coming out ahead in my personal calculus. You taking issue with my "extreme interpretation" seems like a bad faith statement. Perhaps you really do feel mistreated by it; if that's the case I'm sorry because my intent is directly addressing the language you're using but not you personally. To ape some of yo…

I can only beg your pardon for my lack of emotion or delicate language in offering these admittedly blunt and unflattering assessments.

Re: From where I left

#255

Post by eudoxus »

gpderetta wrote: post #245
_acco wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, the reason for these changes is basically "prevent AWS from eating our business". Is that right? If so, are these trends harmful to open source? Are we not choosing between: 1. A world where all revenue in OSS infrastructure ultimately flows to a few big platform companies. 2. A world where these carve-outs are commonplace. Meta's carve-out with Llama is so interesting because it practically calls the big comp…

Affero GPL-style copyleft licenses are an option, although they are treated as radioactive by most companies. A clause that triggers the extensions over GPL only for companies beyond a certain size might make them more platable.

> although they are treated as radioactive by most companies

Isn't this reason enough to not consider it an option?

Re: From where I left

#256

Post by film42 »

langsoul-com wrote: post #252

Why say Claude is ahead of the rest? (I don't keep up to date, only using mainstream tools in ides) Right now I use Amazon Q to buy integrate into phpstorm and its ok. It's free so a major advantage. Is it just terms of using their chat models?

I think it just depends on what you're working on. In my experience, Claude usually has the edge over ChatGPT for most coding or logic problems; however, there are situations where Claude goes too deep the wrong way and ChatGPT wins out by staying more high level. Claude and ChatGPT are also "free" too, btw.

Re: From where I left

#257

Post by Tiberium »

langsoul-com wrote: post #252

Why say Claude is ahead of the rest? (I don't keep up to date, only using mainstream tools in ides) Right now I use Amazon Q to buy integrate into phpstorm and its ok. It's free so a major advantage. Is it just terms of using their chat models?

The author is of course mainly talking about the fact that the current Claude models are one of the best for programming. Only o1 can rival 3.5 Sonnet, but o1 is way more expensive and takes more time to run.

Re: From where I left

#258

Post by bsnnkv »

gpderetta wrote: post #246
bsnnkv wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do also see these kinds of license trends as harmful to open source generally I've re-read this a few times and I'm still not sure what "harmful to open source" means in this sentence, could you expand on this a bit when you have time? (readings I considered: this will dissuade people from using OSI licenses, this will dissuade people from trying to monetize open source components, this will dissuade people from…

switched away to what? To a source-available license? copy-left?

Initially to a PolyForm license[1], which I then forked to create my own[2]. I informally refer to it as an "edu source" license (the source available is primarily available for educational purposes).

[1]: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/strict/1.0.0/ (hn discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24804223)

[2]: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi-license

Re: From where I left

#259

Post by samatman »

PeterZaitsev wrote: post #193
jart wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true of node.js codebases, but last time I checked Redis was written in C and only depends on ISO and POSIX standardized stuff. I doubt there's been any leftpads that have broken the old versions by now.

It is not just compatibility, there are bugs, but most important security issues which are constantly being discovered.

Which makes rot a good metaphor actually. The DNA of a tree which becomes infected with a new mutation of a fungus didn't change, the fungus did.

Code in which a vulnerability is discovered is in the same position. It's developed a susceptibility to a new force malevolent to its purpose. It doesn't have to change to rot, it suffices for the world to change around it.

Re: From where I left

#260

Post by sanderjd »

kunley wrote: post #144
crote wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building something which is beneficial to everyone . Everyone contributes where they can, and in turn takes what they need. Redis Ltd. broke the social contract. They decided that the short-term profitability of the company was more important than the project as a whole…

It is really hard to believe that no one defends antirez&co as protecting themselves from greedy overpriced SaaS businesses who were parasiting others hard work. What about them saases breaking a social contract of giving reasonable prices adequate to the effort put into a product (or a wrapper around the product)?

Lots of people defend these licenses on exactly those grounds. I, too, find it pretty mystifying that this seems to be a minority perspective here. At least this seems to be the case among the people who speak up when this comes up here. It's hard to know if there is a less noisy majority who feels differently about it.
Post reply on HN