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

Gumroad’s source is available

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#131

Post by Multiplayer »

I'm reading a lot of complaints here but let's recognize some interesting aspects that Sahil is talking about: 1. It's the 5th largest rails codebase open to AI ingestion. 2. They are offering bounties for issues. Not large bounties but whatever, it's something.

I personally like rails and would love to see AI tools improve with it. No idea if this code base will really help that, and when but it can't hurt. In my experience I can get next apps up in a jiffy but rails is much more of a struggle. If anyone has any tips here, please post.

I'm always curious about how well bounties work especially now in an AI age. I wonder what the arbitrage on AI spend vs. bounty will be for people that take a run at them.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#132

Post by azemetre »

whalesalad wrote: post #129
fnordlord wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that bullshit is called when bullshit is seen.

This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

It's not hyperbolic. We're in a profession that elevates each other via open source. Saying something that is open source when it's not is no different than snake oil salesmen selling whiskey elixirs in the 1800s as cure alls.

They are lying and need to be called out.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#133

Post by whalesalad »

azemetre wrote: post #132
whalesalad wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

It's not hyperbolic. We're in a profession that elevates each other via open source. Saying something that is open source when it's not is no different than snake oil salesmen selling whiskey elixirs in the 1800s as cure alls. They are lying and need to be called out.

Hard disagree. In the real world, the source of this app is open and therefore it is open source. You guys are behaving like extremists.

Would you prefer nothing at all? Sounds like in this case everyone here is looking past the golden egg in front of you - a successful rails app you can explore and play with - and focusing entirely on the wrong thing.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#134

Post by singpolyma3 »

lolinder wrote: post #67
singpolyma3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there cannot be an OSD license that violates the FSD

GNU has a helpful chart where they clearly show that there is a sliver of "nonfree open source" licenses that are available [0]. > The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, t…

Guarantee that all "nonfree open source" is different readings. Take the NASA case. If youu read it as strictly as Stallman does then it violates the OSD also. The people at OSI at the time it was submitted read it more like a lawyer and decided it was compliant. Possibly today's OSI would disagree. Possibly tomorrow's FSF would agree. It's not a difference between free software and open source but a difference between how two sets of humans interpreted the text of the license.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#135

Post by whateveracct »

whalesalad wrote: post #129
fnordlord wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that bullshit is called when bullshit is seen.

This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

it's not open source - this is clearly "source available." these are terms of art.

just because you can read the English literally and say "the source is open" doesn't mean you've proven anything.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#136

Post by diggan »

whalesalad wrote: post #129
fnordlord wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that bullshit is called when bullshit is seen.

This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

> Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source, I probably wouldn't be a developer in the first place. Just call things what they are, and leave existing terminology alone. Defending "open source" is defending the opportunity for others who were in the same situation as myself in the past.

Otherwise we'll quickly see more of what already started today, companies calling things "open source" in their marketing material but "proprietary" in their legal agreements, and no one will be better off if that's accepted.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#137

Post by lionkor »

noname120 wrote: post #38
lionkor wrote: post #26

Time to train an "LLM" on it and have it reproduce the source code 1-to-1, so I can use it without a license!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

It's only a copyright issue if I know what the original source code looks like. If I don't know what it looks like, and my autocomplete writes it, how could I possibly know it's stolen?

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#138

Post by 999900000999 »

tyzoid wrote: post #130
frainfreeze wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, getting a platform for free that can potentially bring you to $1M is a very good deal, I'm quite sure you ll figure out a strategy before you get to $1M, and perhaps even get a good deal on the license from them. However I do think they should've been more upfront about the licensing.

1M revenue isn't that high a bar to clear in retail, just takes one popular/meme product. After all the COGS/fixed costs are tallied up, that could leave you with significantly less with which to contemplate custom development or platform changes.

I'm sure if you're lucky to get near 1 million in revenue you can reach out and pay for a license.
Post reply on HN