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

My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 536 posts

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#111

Post by csomar »

danielpkl wrote: post #92

Hi everyone, this is Daniel from the Pickle team. Glass is a new open source project from us that we plan to build on and improve. We built several original features for it like live summaries, real-time STT Transcript and one-click "Ask" from summary that we're very excited about. However in initially building it we included code from a GPL-licensed project that we incorrectly attributed as Apache. This was incorrec…

> This was incorrect and sloppy work on our end. We made a quick fix and are working right now to do a proper fix that addresses the issues fully and cleanly.

There is no fix. Your work is derived and should be/will be licensed as GPL. You do not want to accidentally succeed and then find you have nothing. You are being a smart-ass here.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#112

Post by oefrha »

danielpkl wrote: post #92

Hi everyone, this is Daniel from the Pickle team. Glass is a new open source project from us that we plan to build on and improve. We built several original features for it like live summaries, real-time STT Transcript and one-click "Ask" from summary that we're very excited about. However in initially building it we included code from a GPL-licensed project that we incorrectly attributed as Apache. This was incorrec…

Hiding the entire history of this incident[1] behind a force push[2] to make it seem as if credit was given and proper license was chosen from the start really displays a lack of integrity, and tells me it’s definitely malicious (which should be quite clear from zero mention of the original project to begin with, but this act reinforces that) rather an inadvertent screwup.

[1] https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commits/5c462179acface88...

[2] https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/4c51d5133c4987fa1...

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#113

Post by Lionga »

tomhow wrote: post #100
sebmellen wrote: post #94

This being on page 2 with 247 upvotes in the three hour time period this post has been up is surprising to me. I wouldn't be surprised if @dang is suppressing it (but I'd also be happy to hear that it's not being suppressed). It's pretty spineless for the Pickle team to come out and pretend they mistakenly re-licensed GPL code. Hilarious. > in initially building it we included code from a GPL-licensed project that we…

The first rule of HN moderation is that we moderate (i.e., intervene) less if a story reflects negatively on a YC company or YC itself. This principle goes right back to pg days, and was the first thing he taught dang [1]. That said, it doesn't mean we avoid moderation at all and it doesn't mean the guidelines all go out the window. Different factors influence the story's rank and visibility on the front page: upvote…

The evidence clearly shows it was not a 'dumb mistake'

They claim they wrote the whole thing in 4 days. They did not attribute the original author in ANY way.

They clearly showed they intended to steal the authors work and sell it as if they wrote it. YC has just become such a dumpster fire if that kind behaviour is even remotely accepted or called a 'dumb mistake'

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#114

Post by anilakar »

rwmj wrote: post #110
tareqak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, it would be a breach of contract at minimum (based on what I remember from past discussions of this sort of activity involving different participants). If someone else has a better idea of what “forking GPL 3 source code and using a different licence” would be, then please let me and others know.

If you don't follow the license, then you don't have a license to use, distribute or modify the code. So then you get into copyright violation territory, up to $150,000 per infringement in the US if it's intentional.

Sadly in my experience various courts have taken a stance that violating GPL does not cause monetary damages, because the software in question is free.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#115

Post by bruce511 »

tombert wrote: post #76
nativeit wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only devalues labor if it's leveraged specifically to do so. You could make this argument about literally any volunteer activity, software related or otherwise. The real devaluation of labor comes from things like the "gig economy" where costs and compensation are abstracted such that companies can exploit the naivete of workers who, generally speaking, are not accustomed to things like amortization and accounting…

I have had a bunch of jobs. When I have wanted to use open source libraries, I have been told “no” because the repo has no recent updates, because that suggests that whomever built it isn’t working it anymore. Conversely, where there are lots of updates, the project is likely to be used. Why am I telling this story? Because it suggests to me that companies will only use these libraries if there is a guarantee of ongo…

There are different actors in play here, and each one has a different perspective. That's OK, there's enough room in the world for different perspectives.

For the company, making use of Open Source code is free labor. That's good for them. You are free to offer that labor or not.

For some developers, it's cool to write code that's used by zillions. That's reward enough.

Other developers release the code for free, but build an eco system around it. They get paid for related work etc.

New developers use it to flex their skills, and demonstrate ability (and then get upset when someone else turns it into something profitable, but that's another story).

Personally I write code, and ship as source, but it's under a commercial license (cause I like to eat.) Other companies have business models around whatever they do.

You are free to act as you wish. Which is great. We live in an economy that allows each his preferred path.

You're right. Many startups open source their products specifically to get free labor, free marketing, or whatever. As payment they release the code they write to you. Whether you think that deal is right for uou or not us up to you.

If you believe you can add value to a company then reach out to them. It's not like they're "making" you work for free.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#116

Post by rwmj »

anilakar wrote: post #114
rwmj wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't follow the license, then you don't have a license to use, distribute or modify the code. So then you get into copyright violation territory, up to $150,000 per infringement in the US if it's intentional.

Sadly in my experience various courts have taken a stance that violating GPL does not cause monetary damages, because the software in question is free.

Can you cite some actual cases?

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#118

Post by bruce511 »

tombert wrote: post #81
TheChaplain wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GPL is a good enough idea but it is basically impossible for anyone to realistically enforce. Really? If you find a piece of proprietary software does basically the same thing as yours, and the binaries contains the same strings/artwork, then it's reasonable to make a legal case of it. You can even contact FSF and they'll take it further.

If you can directly prove a violation dead to rights (or have enough cause for a discovery request) and you have money for legal defense, sure. A lot of open source stuff is libraries and utilities though that is pretty entrenched in the code. It is hard to even find out about a violation, let alone prove anything. Imagine I came up with a new algorithm to do Fourier Transforms 10% faster than FFTW (or whatever the c…

All completely true. And something you can clearly take into account when you decide what to do with your code.

You may decide its worth people using it, reading it, learning from it, exploiting it, or you may not. It's your choice.

Of course your work may be used outside of the license terms. That's pretty much impossible to enforce. That's true for most-all software, commercial or open or free. If that's your main objection to writing code then I recommend a different career. All good code is pirated. That's just how it is.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#119

Post by sebmellen »

tomhow wrote: post #108
michaelmrose wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting the license text is an explicit act and it seems fairly unlikely for anyone who creates software to think they can relicence GPL code or to think they didn't need to Google it first. Doing something that you meant to do isn't a mistake it's a choice. It seems more likely that they didn't think anyone would notice.

> It seems more likely that they didn't think anyone would notice. Maybe, but if that's what they thought (and I have no idea, I haven't spoken to them or anyone else about it), it's very foolish, because this kind of thing will always get noticed eventually, especially if the project becomes successful.

At this point it's a common strategy used by YC companies. Do you remember this? https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/30/y-combinator-is-being-crit...

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#120

Post by paradite »

sebmellen wrote: post #94

This being on page 2 with 247 upvotes in the three hour time period this post has been up is surprising to me. I wouldn't be surprised if @dang is suppressing it (but I'd also be happy to hear that it's not being suppressed). It's pretty spineless for the Pickle team to come out and pretend they mistakenly re-licensed GPL code. Hilarious. > in initially building it we included code from a GPL-licensed project that we…

As dang said, presume good faith. It's part of the HN guideline.

Also, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Post reply on HN