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

I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 288 posts

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#191

Post by frizlab »

pocksuppet wrote: post #136
markus_zhang wrote: post #23

My advice to all OSS developers: if you open source your project, expect it to be abused in all possible ways. Don't open source if you have anxiety over it. It is how the world works, whether we like it or not. I appreciate that you open source your projects for us to study. But TBH, please help yourself first.

In particular, if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code, and each tens of millions of dollars from it while you don't get a cent. There's writing code for charity, and then there's this . Charity wasn't meant to include hyper-corporations.

And whatever license you use, expect it to be crawled by AI, and have AI provider make millions on it.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#192

Post by ux266478 »

graemep wrote: post #178
ux266478 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only instance in which he's ever engaged in "publicly defending pedophilia" was in remarks he made 20 years ago about the innocuity of "voluntary" sex with minors. He has since retracted those statements and publicly espoused a different and more informed opinion. There's certainly a large amount of very low-quality journalism engaging in bad-faith interpretations of things he's said in other contexts, though the…

Of course restrict it to his opinions on software licensing. I think that is the sort of thing people mean when they say he was right. Lots of people made similar claims. Most notably The National Council for Civil Liberties (now called Liberty), the UK's leading civil/human rights organisation made submissions to parliament claiming that sex with minors was not always harmful, had a pro-paedo organisation as an affi…

The entire point is of my post is that it's no longer his opinion.

> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that.

https://stallman.org/archives/2019-sep-dec.html#14_September...

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#193

Post by cainetighe »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #68
cainetighe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can fix this quickly at DuckDuckGo, and we will for organics. I suspect part of the problem is I am seeing a TLS issue with the nanoclaw.dev site.

Awesome! I am a big fan of DDG. I am happy I could help you guys. Another minor tidbit but please also remove DDG AI summary about nanoclaw referencing the .net if you do take some action about it. I have also written a more detailed comparison comparing all search providers that I could find, perhaps it might be of interest to ya but only Mojeek/(yandex.ru with the nanoclaw.dev/ru) were able to reference it earlier…

This should now be done on organics and search assist. Thanks again!

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#194

Post by buran77 »

shevy-java wrote: post #169
nananana9 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want evil megacorps to give you money when they use your thing, maybe say "if you're an evil megacorp you have to give me money when you use my thing" in the license? If your license reads "hey, you can use this however you want, no matter who you are, and don't have to give me money", people will use it however they want, no matter who they are, and won't give you money. Unfortunately, for decades, free softw…

I agree that MIT may not be the best licence here in such a use case scenario. The question is why corporations think they can be leeches though - and the bigger, the more of a leech they are on the ecosystem. That's just not right.

> The question is why corporations think they can be leeches though

Because they can, they don't just think they do. Everything about the framework they operate in allows or even encourages them to do it.

> That's just not right.

As a matter of morality, you're right. This is something very few people or corporations concern themselves with just as soon as there's real money to be made by not concerning themselves with this.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#195

Post by corndoge »

peaseagee wrote: post #183
ux266478 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only instance in which he's ever engaged in "publicly defending pedophilia" was in remarks he made 20 years ago about the innocuity of "voluntary" sex with minors. He has since retracted those statements and publicly espoused a different and more informed opinion. There's certainly a large amount of very low-quality journalism engaging in bad-faith interpretations of things he's said in other contexts, though the…

Tell that to my spouse who, at age 14, was given his contact card by him directly.

Wow, I'd be thrilled if I met stallman and got his contact card at age 14!

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#196

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

cainetighe wrote: post #193
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome! I am a big fan of DDG. I am happy I could help you guys. Another minor tidbit but please also remove DDG AI summary about nanoclaw referencing the .net if you do take some action about it. I have also written a more detailed comparison comparing all search providers that I could find, perhaps it might be of interest to ya but only Mojeek/(yandex.ru with the nanoclaw.dev/ru) were able to reference it earlier…

This should now be done on organics and search assist. Thanks again!

I actually tried giving the query and can confirm. Searching nanoclaw has now removed nanoclaw.net from the search (although nanoclaw.dev hasn't come in the search results but I suppose that can happen organically)

I am not the creator of nanoclaw or even related to it but I really appreciate how the DDG team took my feedback. Thanks to you as well!

> Thanks again!

Don't mind me if I use this comment (ie. Got thanked by Duckduckgo team for helping them) in anything like a resume haha. I am half joking but although small, I think that (resume?)/something similar could reflect why I love privacy services and if an employer can be right minded, it can give more talking points and maybe even a discussion starter. So I might be only half joking when I say this haha!

I am really happy too that I can be of help. I love the work done at Duckduckgo. Truly one of the few companies that I root for honestly. I use you guys everyday* and I love y'all.

It's truly a pleasure from my side as well that I could help Duckduckgo team, you guys have been quick in acting on the feedback!

Most Privacy conscious user really love and appreciates Duckduckgo imo, myself included.

I hope you guys have a nice day! Take care!

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#197

Post by sfRattan »

nananana9 wrote: post #160
pocksuppet wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular, if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code, and each tens of millions of dollars from it while you don't get a cent. There's writing code for charity, and then there's this . Charity wasn't meant to include hyper-corporations.

If you want evil megacorps to give you money when they use your thing, maybe say "if you're an evil megacorp you have to give me money when you use my thing" in the license? If your license reads "hey, you can use this however you want, no matter who you are, and don't have to give me money", people will use it however they want, no matter who they are, and won't give you money. Unfortunately, for decades, free softw…

> Unfortunately, for decades, free software fanatics have bullied inexperienced and eager programmers, who don't know any better into believing that an actual sustainable development model that respects their work is evil and that we should all work for free and beg for donations.

Silicon Valley hype monsters have done this, sure. And so have too many open source software advocates. But all the free software advocates I've read and listened to over the years have criticized MIT- and BSD-style permissive licenses for permitting exactly the freeloading you describe.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#198

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

nananana9 wrote: post #160
pocksuppet wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular, if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code, and each tens of millions of dollars from it while you don't get a cent. There's writing code for charity, and then there's this . Charity wasn't meant to include hyper-corporations.

If you want evil megacorps to give you money when they use your thing, maybe say "if you're an evil megacorp you have to give me money when you use my thing" in the license? If your license reads "hey, you can use this however you want, no matter who you are, and don't have to give me money", people will use it however they want, no matter who they are, and won't give you money. Unfortunately, for decades, free softw…

With the cloud, GPL won’t protect you either

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#199

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

Andrex wrote: post #140
pocksuppet wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular, if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code, and each tens of millions of dollars from it while you don't get a cent. There's writing code for charity, and then there's this . Charity wasn't meant to include hyper-corporations.

Maybe Stallman had something of a point...

Nope. Stallman helped create this mess.

Free software underpins all the infrastructure of surveillance capitalism.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#200

Post by OsrsNeedsf2P »

yieldcrv wrote: post #190

Gavriel is freaking out over nothing while making rookie mistakes pretending not to be in an SEO war It's literally not his problem that some people click a scam link, he still has 18,000 github stars, its just a bifurcated audience of undiscerning people He's overly worried about a perfect unanimous impression when he shouldn't Now he's wasting his money on SEO tweaks and domain names while saying he only wants to c…

What a terrible take. OP spent a lot of time making his project, and now someone else is impersonating them and trashing their reputation with ads. Of course they have reason to be upset.
Post reply on HN