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

We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

akrites.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 257 posts

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#201

Post by shimman »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #153
seanclayton wrote: post #113

I yearn for the day I see a headline like "We All Depend on Open Source. We Will Fund It Together"

Many of these bigger companies are "funding open source" by paying their employees to participate. Look at all of the corporate email addresses on the LKML for instance...

How about they actually fund open source in the sense of letting the public dictate the direction of software for the country, not a cabal of unelected people that only care for pushing changes that benefit corporations.

Open source would look drastically different, for the better I might add, if devs had a real choice in what to invest in.

Corporate control of open sources has not benefited devs or society as it stands. Continuing to let corporations control should not continue to stand. There is no reason why big tech can have taxes imposed on them where the public can decide what is best for them and not the devs at Meta that are fine with profiting from a genocide or mass misery.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#202

Post by kccqzy »

ninjagoo wrote: post #84

> We are joined by Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Chainguard, Cisco, Citi, Endor Labs, Ericsson, Google, IBM, JPMorganChase, Microsoft and GitHub, NVIDIA, OpenAI, RapidFort, Red Hat, Rust Foundation, Sonatype, Vodafone, and Zscaler A lot of open source folks are going to be very skeptical, rightly so, of this group of players. > ... to find, fix, and responsibly disclose vulnerabilities in critical open source softw…

Option (c) is now thoroughly outdated in the age of AI. Offering a bug bounty attracts the kind of people who think they can make a quick buck using AI and then flood you with bogus bugs found by non-SOTA models. See curl.

What worked is to remove the bounty and simply allow people to report bugs responsibly. This attracts the kind of altruistic volunteers who want more secure software for ideological rather than financial reasons. They still use AI but you won’t see slop.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#203

Post by a2800276 »

ninjagoo wrote: post #84

> We are joined by Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Chainguard, Cisco, Citi, Endor Labs, Ericsson, Google, IBM, JPMorganChase, Microsoft and GitHub, NVIDIA, OpenAI, RapidFort, Red Hat, Rust Foundation, Sonatype, Vodafone, and Zscaler A lot of open source folks are going to be very skeptical, rightly so, of this group of players. > ... to find, fix, and responsibly disclose vulnerabilities in critical open source softw…

It doesn't help that "Akrides" sound like a Bond villain EvilCorp run by Dr Ambergris whose face is horribly disfigured from a series botched face lifts that's plotting to populate Mars with big boobed clones running around dressed only in brassieres, just like his lead concubine, Dorothy "Dirty" Sanchez (Don't blame me for Kam Fleming's knack for double entendres...) who leads his team of equally big boobed secret helicopter pilotresses.

This is, of course, ridiculous, and Dr. Ambergris is just an amalagam of Muammar al-Gaddafi and some 2nd rate wannabe strongmen not worth mentioning that I made up for fun.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#204

Post by 999900000999 »

shimman wrote: post #195
999900000999 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some projects , like Godot are MIT so contributors can use it for their own commercial projects. Occasionally, EA for example, a big corp will donate some money to. Apple has created PRS to add support for Vision Pro. If Godot was GPL it would be useless for most commercial game devs.

You are absolutely allowed to use GPL software in commercial products, why are you deliberately lying or misleading? GitHub could only exist because it was built on top of git, which is also GPL licensed. This is not the only example but should be the immediate one since nearly a vast majority of devs touch git on a daily basis. Maybe stop listening to your legal team and actually think for a moment. GPL doesn't prev…

You have to then contribute all your changes back.

The Godot foundation picked MIT for a good reason. If your legal team says no GPL then no GPL. This has been standard practice for decades.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#205

Post by jgalar »

josteink wrote: post #196
playorizaya wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> So, MS builds VSCode - doesn't even fork Atom to do so. Looks identical to it. They built it from scratch. Bigger. Slower. Someone needs to fix a memory leak here. Atom was famously slow. Even among people using it and championing it. VSCode totally wowed people not just because it was faster, but because it was essentially the first «real» Electron-app which proved Electron-apps could have near native performance.…

> proved Electron-apps could have near native performance

I don't think that's true at all. Try running Zed or Sublime.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#206

Post by sinpif »

dmitrygr wrote: post #2

> Additionally, when a critical package has no one maintaining it, Akrites will stand as the maintainer of last resort so a fix can still reach everyone in a timely fashion. Ambitious and interesting. I wonder how long this will last and on whose dime and time? Akrites employs no engineers, so who will make the fixes and who'll pay them?

I'd be interested in 1) what makes a package "critical" 2) how do you take ownership if the original author is unreachable or not cooperating? Are you going to fork it and somehow make everyone switch to your fork, even on older LTS systems?

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#207

Post by bigfishrunning »

shimman wrote: post #201
bigfishrunning wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these bigger companies are "funding open source" by paying their employees to participate. Look at all of the corporate email addresses on the LKML for instance...

How about they actually fund open source in the sense of letting the public dictate the direction of software for the country, not a cabal of unelected people that only care for pushing changes that benefit corporations. Open source would look drastically different, for the better I might add, if devs had a real choice in what to invest in. Corporate control of open sources has not benefited devs or society as it sta…

You are absolutely welcome to start a project and exclude anyone who you think is unworthy of contributing. Software is not and never was a public good.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#208

Post by Dylan16807 »

finnthehuman wrote: post #193
limagnolia wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of Google submitting vulnerabilities and refusing to assist maintainers create a patch when asked to do so?

Wasn’t that a story with ffmpeg a few months ago? And people were getting roasted for even the suggestion that google should contribute patches?

People were getting rightly roasted for calling google a leech when A) google does donate money to ffmpeg and B) that bug was in a weird format google almost certainly has disabled so they're not reporting it to get free labor.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#209

Post by Dylan16807 »

999900000999 wrote: post #204
shimman wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely allowed to use GPL software in commercial products, why are you deliberately lying or misleading? GitHub could only exist because it was built on top of git, which is also GPL licensed. This is not the only example but should be the immediate one since nearly a vast majority of devs touch git on a daily basis. Maybe stop listening to your legal team and actually think for a moment. GPL doesn't prev…

You have to then contribute all your changes back. The Godot foundation picked MIT for a good reason. If your legal team says no GPL then no GPL. This has been standard practice for decades.

Just because you have to follow the legal team doesn't mean they're making good decisions for the business.

The changes you make to a game engine are almost never the important part of your game's IP.

Re: We all depend on open source. We will defend it together

#210

Post by Dylan16807 »

hacker_homie wrote: post #120
p-e-w wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the AGPL had become the default license for open source projects, as it was intended to when the service provider loophole in the GPL became apparent. The software industry would be unrecognizable. Instead, millions of developers now gift corporations their work by releasing everything under MIT or Apache, and those corporations take from that treasure trove what they want and give back what they want, whi…

lying about the license to linus probably wasn't a smart move for AGPLv3 adoption. In my experience the virality clause is the main reason those projects don't get used therefor sponsored.

Lying about what? I can't find anything about this.
Post reply on HN