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

201–210 of 288 posts

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

#201

Post by yieldcrv »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #200
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.

being upset is a feeling, panic buying domains is an action

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

#202

Post by vablings »

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…

The idea that software that is free NEEDS to be open source because "I don't want something running on my computer" but then will go and download the precompiled binary hurts my head alot

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

#203

Post by dTal »

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.

I'm not following - are you implying that handing a contact card to someone is a sexual pass? Or is it only considered sexual when the recipient is underage?

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

#204

Post by roywiggins »

mbac32768 wrote: post #119
roywiggins wrote: post #26

I'll be honest, I'd take this more seriously if this post didn't read like ChatGPT output. If you won't spend the effort to use your own words why should I stir myself to care? Sorry, I'll put it in hand-crafted ChatGPTese: ## The Slop Problem Every post sounds the same. No intelligence. No individuality. Just pure, clean LLM slop. Let's dive in. - Every post has LLM tells . This is key. - Posts get upvoted anyway .…

A year ago I would have agreed but lately, when it comes to stuff linked off of HN, it's actually more likely to be clear and readable if it's AI written.

I don't find the LLM written stuff very readable because after one too many "real"s or "The X Dilemma" my brain shuts off. It's not even voluntary, it just does that on its own.

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

#205

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

littlestymaar wrote: post #154
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman is always right, and HN always downvotes it.

Publicly defending pedophilia arguably isn't “right”, but if you restrict Stallman's positions to software licensing, then I'd agree with you.

I keep hearing this.

Please quote Stallman's quote where he defends pedophilia.

Not a quote of someone else saying that Stallman defends pedofilhia, but a quote by Stallman himself.

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

#206

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

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.

I wish at 14 I had people of such integrity around me.

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

#207

Post by Andrex »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #199
Andrex wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Stallman had something of a point...

Nope. Stallman helped create this mess. Free software underpins all the infrastructure of surveillance capitalism.

It underpins all software, and has wormed its way into Windows. I'm not sure this is as good a point as you think.

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

#208

Post by markus_zhang »

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…

What if they simply use the code and don't give you the $$$? Are you going to sue them?

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

#209

Post by dspillett »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #198
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…

With the cloud, GPL won’t protect you either

AGPLv3 largely does, if you can and do enforce it in some way when breaches happen.

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

#210

Post by smegger001 »

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.

> if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code,

thats why the gpl family of license exist.

MIT/BSD family licenses are do whatever you want with this,

if you want to make money off of you pet opensource project I recommend multi-license it with a copyleft with copyright assignment required for contributions and offer other licenses with a fee.

Post reply on HN