Gumroad’s source is available • Hacker News Board

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#101

Post by dgrcode » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

Onavo wrote: post #90

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license is actually pretty restrictive: you can only use this if you own a small company or work for government / non-profit. Most average human's (including myself) can't use the source code in any way: > You may use the software under this license only if (1) your company has less than 1 million USD (2024) total revenue in the prior tax year, and less than 10 million USD (2024) GMV (Gross Merchandise Value), or…

They are probably also trying to get free contributions to the codebase. Gumroad is infamous for underpaying and using cheap labor where possible.

> Gumroad is infamous for underpaying and using cheap labor where possible.

What? Where do you get this from? It's quite the opposite.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#102

Post by joelhaasnoot » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:34 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #48

The Readme goes right to how to install it, and other than the logo saying "sell your stuff, see what sticks" there is 0 information about what it does. Sure I can Google, but I think it should be right there, at the top of the Readme.

The license is also not front and center

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#103

Post by echelon » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #52

Dear SHL , Please truly open source this. I personally wouldn't mind AGPL but would still much prefer MIT Thanks.

There's no way he's going to do that. The leverage and market advantage would evaporate.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#104

Post by that_guy_iain » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:44 PM UTC

troymc wrote: post #65

that_guy_iain wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People here know the difference or are easily able to understand it if they haven't been confronted with it. No. They're trying to force a definition of open-source that does not exist to make it FOSS because FOSS people want everything to be FOSS so try to pressure people into it. The definition is defined by dictionaries and it's different from what is said on here. Quite simply, they're wrong. They want it to mea…

People who develop software have to understand what "open source" means (technically, not just some sloppy interpretation), because using a non-open-source package in an otherwise open source project can contaminate the whole thing. License violations can pose high risks, both financial and reputation losses. Because of that, a lot of effort goes into helping make sure that software stacks are using consistent licens…

People who develop software have to understand the difference between FOSS and Open-Source. We already have a term for what you want to describe as open-source, it's called FOSS.

Words have meanings they're collected and recorded in dictionaries, these are the source of truth for the definition of words. It's important that we have them so we can all talk and know what we mean. This is at the very core of languages.

This open source has to be FOSS is some straight-up bullshit by people who spend all their time in the FOSS community.

By every definition other than the FOSS community, this is open source. That is a fact.

Btw: FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. Even the FOSS community fundamentally says that open source does not neet to be free.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#105

Post by ge96 » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:52 PM UTC

turnsout wrote: post #4

I looked for a blog post announcing this, and couldn't find it. But Antiwork's Github profile mentions: > Antiwork emerged from Gumroad's mission to automate repetitive tasks. In 2025, we're taking a bold step by open-sourcing our entire suite of tools that helped run and scale Gumroad. We believe in making powerful automation accessible to everyone. That's pretty wild! I've always loved Gumroad's simplicity for crea…

Here I was thinking it was the subreddit

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#106

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

rmason wrote: post #3

It launched right here on HN 14 years ago. https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227/photo/1

[deleted]

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#107

Post by ingen0s » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

nice work, you forgot to remove your API key tho

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#108

Post by occamschainsaw » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

ihowlatthemoon wrote: post #6

rmason wrote: post #3

It launched right here on HN 14 years ago. https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227/photo/1

Original discussion thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2406614

Interesting discussion on the merits of the initial plan of a paid link shortening service and the opposite approach (easy-to-setup paid access to links).They were discussing adding Bitcoin as a payment method when it was 0.7 cents a pop.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#109

Post by spiffyk » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

geenat wrote: post #93

noname120 wrote: post #7

Any idea what the motivation could be?

https://x.com/shl/status/1908146557708362188 Probably not entirely, but straight from the author.

Can't help but notice he's basically knowingly "donating" the code to multi-billion corporations to train their LLMs on (while in general those same corporations source their training data in ethically questionable ways), while mere mortal human individuals and small businesses are bound by a non-free license. An interesting decision to say the least.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#110

Post by XCSme » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 3:03 PM UTC

udev4096 wrote: post #78

What a joke of a license. This is not open source. Why the fuck is everyone in VC land trying to change the true definition of open source?

Most of the VC open-source projects use open-source as a lead magnet/marketing tactic only, with no intention or desire of wanting people to actually use the software.