[flagged]
Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
31–40 of 51 posts
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an MIT license. Worrying about who "owns the IP" for an open source project when you could fork any time seems a little much.
MIT license doesn't transfer trademarks and patents.
I’m not familiar with open sourced code under MIT that is still protected by a patent. Can you share some examples of this?
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#33[flagged]
I don’t think this was originally an open source project. If I remember people were pretty excited when Google hired the author of fastlane because it meant there would be more resources to support Android too. I want to say it started as an iOS project.
Maybe it’s had enough of a push they don’t need a fully funded team at this point. It was already great before Google had any ownership.
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#34I never got into using Fastlane, but it had some cool stuff. I just tend to usually work alone, and Fastlane didn't actually help me out, because of the workflow I adopt. I don't actually do much automated stuff.
This is a danger with any of these dependencies. I do know that there's a whole ecosystem around Fastlane, and I think that some companies even make money from it, so I'd hope that it is not actually allowed to rot on the vine.
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#35Twitter is the original link, this mastodon seems to be a mirror, so why not link there? https://twitter.com/steipete/status/1627315332716150785
The truth is somehow, techies here have become somewhat allergic to Twitter.
This would be a problem if Fastlane was closed source. Thankfully it is open-source and like with open-source communities before, they can maintain it themselves. That is the point of open-source.
So this is a non-story.
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
MIT license doesn't transfer trademarks and patents.
I’m not familiar with open sourced code under MIT that is still protected by a patent. Can you share some examples of this?
In practice it means that development work still happens, and, and prebuilt redist binaries still get made, but only in countries that don't recognize software patents.
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#37For context, fastlane is “a tool for iOS and Android developers to automate tedious tasks like generating screenshots, dealing with provisioning profiles, and releasing your application.” https://github.com/fastlane/fastlane Google seems to have acquired(?) it in 2017: https://krausefx.com/blog/fastlane-is-joining-google I would guess this means they hired the lead developer(s) and funded a team to work on the projec…
They were acquired by Crashlytics, who rebranded as Fabric, which was acquired by Twitter, then sold off to Google and merged with Firebase.
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#38The title is sensationalized, dang can we get an edit? Fastlane absolutely has maintainers and is not abandoned. It's just that Google isn't paying for maintenance now. EDIT: I'm aware the original twoot says this verbatim, it's just not correct
If you really care and / or want to make a positive difference, email the staff at hn@ycombinator.com. There is too much activity for mods to patrol it all, and posts of this nature don't meet the HN standard for curious conversation.
The staff are responsive and eager to help, all it takes is reaching out via the recommended channel (email).
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#39The title is sensationalized, dang can we get an edit? Fastlane absolutely has maintainers and is not abandoned. It's just that Google isn't paying for maintenance now. EDIT: I'm aware the original twoot says this verbatim, it's just not correct
5 months of no releases for this kind of project seems pretty abandoned
Re: Google is no longer sponsoring Fastlane
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
MIT license doesn't transfer trademarks and patents.
I’m not familiar with open sourced code under MIT that is still protected by a patent. Can you share some examples of this?
Technically not under MIT, but x264 and x265 are being developed despite the underlying technologies under it have patents.