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

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#201

Post by rafram »

ricardobeat wrote: post #196
jvns wrote: post #189

I tried to grep the code for `api.` to get a sense for all the vendors this codebase is using, and which you'd need to have relationships with to run the code. Here's what I found: payments: https://api.paypal.com https://api.stripe.com tax stuff: https://api.taxjar.com https://api.vatstack.com (EU VAT) https://apiservices.iras.gov.sg for iOS app (?): https://api.appstoreconnect.apple.com https://api.storekit.itunes.…

That's pretty refreshing compared to the average 400 external "partners" your average online t-shirt store has.

Most of those are probably indirect. Same here: Stripe doesn’t issue credit cards or even process transactions itself. It partners with a half-dozen or so credit card networks, and each network partners with thousands of banks around the world.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#202

Post by DetroitThrow »

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #117
DetroitThrow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is open-source! No, it's not. Please read number 5, it might enlighten you to what people colloquially consider open source, which didn't have a dictionary definition until technical people started using this definition: https://opensource.org/osd >And the fact, people on here don't know that shows people on here don't know the difference. ..What? Do you know what OSS vs FOSS is?

OSD is god and gets to prescribe what is and is not open source? Says who?

This doesn't match the Webster's definition either. If your response to that is "there are no gods anyways" then you've earned yourself a chuckle.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#203

Post by hankchinaski »

I don’t get the point on going open source aside from a tiny boost in marketing. What is the objective and proposition here? Considering as others have said is not really open source. If I were the founder I would not do that. It’s like if Airbnb went open source or something

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#204

Post by insane_dreamer »

hankchinaski wrote: post #203

I don’t get the point on going open source aside from a tiny boost in marketing. What is the objective and proposition here? Considering as others have said is not really open source. If I were the founder I would not do that. It’s like if Airbnb went open source or something

The value of AirBNB is not in its code but in its network.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#205

Post by hankchinaski »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #204
hankchinaski wrote: post #203

I don’t get the point on going open source aside from a tiny boost in marketing. What is the objective and proposition here? Considering as others have said is not really open source. If I were the founder I would not do that. It’s like if Airbnb went open source or something

The value of AirBNB is not in its code but in its network.

And yet is never gonna be open source

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#206

Post by bigtunacan »

adrr wrote: post #159
Aurornis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How did lose all their equity? You can’t declare equity is worthless. You can raise new rounds with different valuations and dilute previous investors/employees but they would also dilute themselves.

Equity for pre-IPO companies is often tied to an expiration. If there is no qualifying liquidity event before the expiration then your equity disappears unless the company takes action to reissue your equity. That sometimes happens for people who are still employed with the company, but almost never for former employees.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#207

Post by lolinder »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #198
lolinder wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which point of the OSD would be violated by the NASA clause if read the same way that the FSF reads it?

OSD 3 And possibly 9

Eh, OSD 3 just says that derived works must be possible, it doesn't say that you must be able to incorporate third party source code into the derived work. Meanwhile the FSF's definition explicitly calls out this freedom as an essential component of Freedom 1:

> One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module—for instance, if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add—then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#208

Post by Aurornis »

adrr wrote: post #159
Aurornis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How did lose all their equity? You can’t declare equity is worthless. You can raise new rounds with different valuations and dilute previous investors/employees but they would also dilute themselves.

> You can’t declare equity is worthless. You can raise new rounds with different valuations and dilute previous investors/employees but they would also dilute themselves.

The investors sold the company back to the founder for $1. That's as close as it gets to declaring equity as worthless.

Re: Gumroad’s source is available

#209

Post by benatkin »

graemep wrote: post #11
arielcostas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's more of a "source available" than Open Source in its definition. I'd rather they use AGPL or something like that.

To put it another way they want to call it open source without actually being open source.

I used to make a bigger deal about this, but now I think that whether something calls itself Open Source is less relevant than if bait and switches are being done.

Teasing a release on X is less bothersome than what Matrix is doing by relicensing from Apache to AGPL and making what was billed as a vendor neutral communication platform not so vendor neutral. The people working at Element certainly don't want to use Matrix/Element under the AGPL, so why should they expect earlier users and members of their community like me to want to use it under the AGPL?

There was a time when saying Open Source meant something by itself. Now you have to include details like the license, what exactly is under the license, and the leadership.

Post reply on HN