131–140 of 536 posts
And it has the same fake excuse as usual "Since this was our first OSS project, we didn’t realize at first." He sure discovered this new open source thing and it's very confusing. It's not like it's almost 40 years old at that point. I'll never understand people who lie like toddlers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/comm…
I don’t think the rebase is malicious. Would they even be allowed to continue distributing the older commits (where they claim an Apache license) or would that be to perpetuate the license violation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889... let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free. people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.
Not fixed, covered up.
> let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free.
What a poetic formulation? In reality, they deleted history and they put a license that allows the "freedom" to let them monetize the code. I wonder how's the original author more free with this license? How is anyone more free? Sounds like the license was "accidentally" "too free" in a way that only made themselves more free.
> people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.
It's, in fact, the precise definition when the open-source project uses the GPLv3 license.
YC should put integrity and ethics of founders as a key variable for funding.
looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889... let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free. people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.
And they've now orphaned that commit, they're a sketchy bunch at best. Unfortunately, sketchy is generally rewarded.
They've squashed the history to hide their earlier "error". This isn't compliant with section 5a of the GPLv3[1].
"sketchy at best" is a polite description of this pattern of behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'
Is there a way to file lawsuits for such cases? These incidents lead to death of open-source and crush hearts of open-source developers.
Is there a way to file lawsuits for such cases? These incidents lead to death of open-source and crush hearts of open-source developers.
I believe that BusyBox sued over violations like 17 years ago. I am not aware of any other instances.