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

NVD3 is back

nvd3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: NVD3 is back

#11

Post by malandrew »

billyjobob wrote: post #6

It says that they regret attempting to revoke the GPL (which goes with out saying, since they got huge negative publicity) but it doesn't seem to acknowledge that revoking the GPL is not possible. Therefore there is nothing to stop them trying this again if they ever think no one is watching. I wouldn't rely on this software for anything mission critical.

Can you point me to links where they got negative publicity for this? I'd love to read the comments since I'm interested in software licenses and community reactions to licensing policies and policy changes.

Re: NVD3 is back

#12

Post by foobar2k »

I call bullshit on their stated reason for taking it down

we believed it was prudent to take it down to undertake a code review to assess if there were any issues

There's a lesson here in making apologies. The best 360s and/or apologies are unreserved, never give an excuse.

Re: NVD3 is back

#13

Post by pebb »

Looks like they got owned by this:

QUOTE

  I'm one of the 30 other individuals that acutally patched and commited changes for Bob to include in nvd3.js; I'm looking for contacts for the other 29 contributors.  (Please contact me at using the feedback form on congocart.com or master-technology.com) I would like one of us (I'm willing to volenteer) to contact Mr. Qunibi of Novus partners in a position of consensuses from those who actually have code in the product.

   My thoughts that would I believe be amicable (i.e. win/win) to both sides is that they can have our permission to take ALL of our changes closed source in the own future versions as long as we also (the community) may use the last release under the open source (Apache) license it has been under since shortly after it was released on there official novus github account and go our own separate way.   I know my changes were really early to the library and some of my code may not even exist anymore (lol).   

    But I believe the cost for them to audit the whole library and rip out all of our changes and rewrite it all could be major -- I believe Bob could legally remove all of our code; but for the actual re-implementation Bob would have to hand it off to someone to do a fully clean-room version to make them legally safe from being sued.   And that could be very costly in time and resources.   Cost wise for them It might even be cheaper for them to ditch the last 6-7 months of changes and to just revert to the version before my patch/commit (which was issue #3  ).     So I think we might be able to make this a win/win proposition if I can get the consensuses of the other 29 contributors.   
 Nathanael A.

Re: NVD3 is back

#14

Post by foobar2k »

malandrew wrote: post #11
billyjobob wrote: post #6

It says that they regret attempting to revoke the GPL (which goes with out saying, since they got huge negative publicity) but it doesn't seem to acknowledge that revoking the GPL is not possible. Therefore there is nothing to stop them trying this again if they ever think no one is watching. I wouldn't rely on this software for anything mission critical.

Can you point me to links where they got negative publicity for this? I'd love to read the comments since I'm interested in software licenses and community reactions to licensing policies and policy changes.

http://loopj.com/2012/11/16/nvd3-erased-from-existence/

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4797461

Re: NVD3 is back

#16

Post by new299 »

It's great that they decided to open source it (again?). But in some ways it would also have been interesting to see this go to court and establish a precedent on the authority required to license software.

Whose signoff do you need? A developer, your manager?, the CEO? Is it enough for people within the company to be "generally aware" of the fact. Seems like an interesting question to me.

Re: NVD3 is back

#17

Post by gamegod »

jordanthoms wrote: post #10
billyjobob wrote: post #6

It says that they regret attempting to revoke the GPL (which goes with out saying, since they got huge negative publicity) but it doesn't seem to acknowledge that revoking the GPL is not possible. Therefore there is nothing to stop them trying this again if they ever think no one is watching. I wouldn't rely on this software for anything mission critical.

There were interesting legal questions before to do with how an unauthorized release affects things - but this clearly an official release so that doesn't apply. If the GPL licence is valid, it clearly cannot be revoked.

IANAL but I presume the corporation is the copyright owner, not the developer. The developer is not authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.

Re: NVD3 is back

#18

Post by lloeki »

pebb wrote: post #13

Looks like they got owned by this: QUOTE I'm one of the 30 other individuals that acutally patched and commited changes for Bob to include in nvd3.js; I'm looking for contacts for the other 29 contributors. (Please contact me at using the feedback form on congocart.com or master-technology.com) I would like one of us (I'm willing to volenteer) to contact Mr. Qunibi of Novus partners in a position of consensuses from…

Please people, make things readable [0]:

    I'm one of the 30 other individuals that acutally patched and commited changes
    for Bob to include in nvd3.js; I'm looking for contacts for the other 29
    contributors.  (Please contact me at using the feedback form on congocart.com
    or master-technology.com) I would like one of us (I'm willing to volenteer) to
    contact Mr. Qunibi of Novus partners in a position of consensuses from those
    who actually have code in the product.

    My thoughts that would I believe be amicable (i.e. win/win) to both sides is
    that they can have our permission to take ALL of our changes closed source
    in the own future versions as long as we also (the community) may use the
    last release under the open source (Apache) license it has been under since
    shortly after it was released on there official novus github account and go
    our own separate way.   I know my changes were really early to the library
    and some of my code may not even exist anymore (lol).   

    But I believe the cost for them to audit the whole library and rip out all
    of our changes and rewrite it all could be major -- I believe Bob could
    legally remove all of our code; but for the actual re-implementation Bob
    would have to hand it off to someone to do a fully clean-room version to
    make them legally safe from being sued.   And that could be very costly in
    time and resources.   Cost wise for them It might even be cheaper for them
    to ditch the last 6-7 months of changes and to just revert to the version
    before my patch/commit (which was issue #3  ).     So I think we might
    be able to make this a win/win proposition if I can get the consensuses of
    the other 29 contributors.   
    Nathanael A.
[0]: Use what's best for you, but I pasted in vim, then 5gqq 8G=G gg>G

Re: NVD3 is back

#19

Post by pyre »

new299 wrote: post #16

It's great that they decided to open source it (again?). But in some ways it would also have been interesting to see this go to court and establish a precedent on the authority required to license software. Whose signoff do you need? A developer, your manager?, the CEO? Is it enough for people within the company to be "generally aware" of the fact. Seems like an interesting question to me.

Sounds like they might have an official policy on how to release stuff as open-source, but it wasn't followed.

Re: NVD3 is back

#20

Post by erre »

foobar2k wrote: post #12

I call bullshit on their stated reason for taking it down we believed it was prudent to take it down to undertake a code review to assess if there were any issues There's a lesson here in making apologies. The best 360s and/or apologies are unreserved, never give an excuse.

I think their stated reason is very much to be expected: they are a financial institution, their whole business model (and therefore mentality) is to act quickly to decrease risk. Makes perfect sense that they would take it down first and judge later.

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, but it's consistent with what I would expect, assuming the scenario is true (internal code, open-sourced without some higher-up knowing about it, higher-up hears about it, freaks out).

Post reply on HN