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

141–150 of 536 posts

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

#141

Post by hcfman »

Doesn't this happen all the time with Ultralytics yolo code? They use an AGPL license, which to my understand means that anything that links with this code also becomes AGPL.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the license also viral if there's a network connection involved? i.e. I run the code in a container with a little network interface added ?

And yet Microsoft have release code with different licenses that make's use of Ultralytics code.

I potentially would be interested in using these wildlife detection models in a commercial (Not open source) context but simply don't trust the claim that it would be okay to do so, sounds like a big business risk to me.

What is the opinion of the community of the MIT licenses associated with PyTorch wildlife from Microsoft okay to use in a closed source commercial context? Microsoft have put an MIT license on this, but their code does imports of ultralytics libraries, which I thought were AGPL.

Note: The GPL 3 license from the official yolov9 differs in this, it must be possible to run the same code on the platform, but your usage may be closed source.

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

#142

Post by michaelmrose »

sakjur wrote: post #126
oefrha wrote: post #112

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?

I think the assumption that the license.txt in a given revision is accurate an applicable is erroneous. One is expected to follow the license.txt in the main repo regardless of revision.

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

#144

Post by bigfatkitten »

tombert wrote: post #68
rfl890 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you're writing open source because you want to write open source, then none of this matters. If you are worried about corporations stealing your work, that should drive you away from OSS. OSS should stay "hobbyist" for the individual developer.

Sure but it sort of devalues labor. If a corporation is stealing your OSS code (and violating a license) then that implies that they think your code has value, they might have paid a person to write that code but instead some hobbyist built it for free and a corporation steals it. A few months ago, I made a pull request to LMAX Disruptor, which was merged. I was initially excited because even if my PR was simple it’s…

I submitted a PR to fix a bug in cloud-init a while ago.

It was in my interest to do so, because it means I benefit from fixed packages in the Linux distributions I use. This saves me a ton of time in not having to maintain my own packages with my fix included.

If it helps Canonical make money, then it’s no skin off my nose because I still got the benefit I wanted.

I’m not going around fixing bugs that don’t affect me, or adding features I don’t need.

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

#145

Post by bawolff »

tombert wrote: post #60

Things like this are why I have become disillusioned with Open Source, and why latest projects have been closed source. The GPL is a good enough idea but it is basically impossible for anyone to realistically enforce. If a corporation is selling an optimized binary, then it can be almost impossible to prove that there was any violation of the GPL without viewing the source.

> If a corporation is selling an optimized binary, then it can be almost impossible to prove that there was any violation of the GPL without viewing the source.

I think you can notice that output looks similar, error messages are similar, etc. If the program is non-trivial its usually pretty obvious if its a copy or a reimplementation.

If it sounds plausible, presumably you could sue and read the source in discovery (ianal, not sure precisely how that works)

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

#146

Post by sam1r »

ayongpm wrote: post #109
ayongpm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won’t be forgiven unless you restore the license to GPL v3.

You restored the license to GPL v3: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889... You won't be forgiven unless you credited sohzm and state that cheating-daddy is a direct inspiration

I love comments like this ^. It provides a solution to the table, rather than conversing the problem over dinner.

IMO This sounds pretty fair to me. Publicly apologize somewhere, and link OP to it. I like that. Or come on, at least Venmo "the kid" $1000 -- "a kid" who saved you time, and is putting food on your table.

"A kid" whose idea you took and profited on. Wow, just realizing upon writing this -- what if Pickle CEO has kids, and one your kid reads this?

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by perihelions »

tareqak wrote: post #56
fargle wrote: post #42

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.

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.

You can read the text of the GPLv3 license itself; it has a specific provision for this case.

> "Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice."

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

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

#150

Post by sam1r »

This situation truly enrages me and is likely the reason (IMO) why talented programmers (today, in 2025 versus, 2008-2013 where small founder startups thrived at places like 500 + YC).

Quite ironic how YC touts technical founders > "non-tech" ones -- when acts such as this strip ones chances of wanting to become one, or even continue showcasing their talent publicly on platforms like GH.

Post reply on HN