151–160 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is not pedantry, this is adhering to the actual definition of open source that is generally accepted in our community: https://opensource.org/osd > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way it's been phrased, it seems like if you want to use the code to run a small webshop for some goods, you can use it, but if you're actively trying to run a resale platform, that's when you get in trouble. I don't think not being open source is that big of a deal in this situation, they aren't the only player in this space anyway. (Woocommerce to my knowledge still dominates the "small business webshop" market…
It's risky if you have any chance of ever crossing $1M in company revenue because the license will terminate as soon as you reach that and you'll have to rewrite everything. > The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright, but only as long as you meet all the conditions below. > You may use the softwa…
That's not the same thing. And quite frankly, if you're making over $1 million in annual revenue you should be able to afford the license fee for the most important part of your company.
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…
Must be awesome to use this software in a country that does not use the US Dollar as its currency :)
It's your FX-converted revenue, meaning, whatever currency you use converted to USD. The license doesn't bother to state this because they assume basic common sense on the part of the licensee.
If that's not enough, they have the backing of several decades of industry practice[1] and several centuries of law.
[1] For example, take a look at the Steam and Epic creator agreements, which also use USD for financial thresholds even though their stores operate in dozens of countries and accept dozens of currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One day work to start a multi-million project, 13 years ago. That's the real vibing.
Some might not be aware: It wasn't always smooth sailing for Sahil (could have had a much comfortable life if he stayed put at Pinterest). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37059594
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 alr…
> Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source In this instance, where did Gumroad claim that its code was open source?
My reply was more directed towards the "Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?" in a general sense, as it wouldn't have been the first time I read about someone not understanding why people who do "open source" would like the existing meaning to remain.
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.
usually if the project comes with a big lengthy beautiful readme thats actually a contra indicator that the thing is a production repo
It launched right here on HN 14 years ago. https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227/photo/1
Gumroad became my cautionary tale for startup equity for early engineers. I remember excitedly following the story from start. It was fun to follow along. Then around 2015 things weren’t working well, so they laid off most of the team. Investors sold the company back to the founder at a steep discount. As I recall, a major investor sold their ownership for $1. Just like that, the founding engineers who worked so hard…
It launched right here on HN 14 years ago. https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227/photo/1
Gumroad became my cautionary tale for startup equity for early engineers. I remember excitedly following the story from start. It was fun to follow along. Then around 2015 things weren’t working well, so they laid off most of the team. Investors sold the company back to the founder at a steep discount. As I recall, a major investor sold their ownership for $1. Just like that, the founding engineers who worked so hard…
Another case: startup running out of money after a series B or C and a history of questionable expenses. Everybody but a few left. The founders sold their main product for cheap to some private equity firm, focused on a crappy internal tool they built and they used their last money to hire a literal army of sales people.
These sales guys were apparently amazing and somehow managed to sell the tool to a bunch of fortune 500 companies and are now making bank.
The main product they sold? It's still on life support, the original buyer just sold it to another holding.