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

My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 536 posts

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#311

Post by close04 »

sokoloff wrote: post #195
close04 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 15 seconds of search turned up ...some latent passive aggressiveness and YC's founder ethics code not YC's own ethics code. You need an anchor for the chain of trust. That must be the VC's (YC in this case) integrity and ethics code first. You stopped reading after the first few words, misunderstood even those, and rushed to answer didn't you? I addressed exactly how to evaluate ethics and integrity prefunding, and…

I don’t believe I misunderstood these words of yours, and provided you a ready reference to check for yourself whether YC had a code of ethics and whether that code contained the elements you were hand-wringing about. > If YC has no ethics code, that's your answer right there. If they do but it fails to mention basic things like lying, cheating, deceiving especially when done intentionally, bingo again. -------- > YC…

sokoloff, I already told you twice that I am referring to YC's (or any VC's) own code of ethics, for themselves. Not just the one for founders. The rules YC applies to themselves are the root of trust for everything that later comes out of the startups they finance.

This issue could have been caught earlier and solved if YC checked for this earlier. And maybe it could even have been prevented if YC imposed harsher penalties for breaking the ethics code or the law. But instead it was caught and made public by someone else, and it's that public pressure that caused any reaction from the founders.

> that's pretty good from a 2 page application and 15 minute interview process.

You're damning YC with praise. 15min to assess potential for profit but also ethics and integrity doesn't make it look like they'll put much focus on the latter. Always good to have confirmation.

It's your choice to take the strawman argument and fight that instead because it's more accessible to you. It's your choice to pretend you don't get the meaning of words (like what YC's own code of ethics could mean, of the "if" that preceded every one of those sentences you keep quoting) and drag the conversation down just to save face. It's your choice to keep finding weak defense arguments for VCs who are sacrificing integrity for money in a 15min interview.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#312

Post by baobun »

tombert wrote: post #290
bawolff wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But after a few minutes it occurred to me that I just did free labor for a for-profit trading company. If they merged in my code then must have thought it had some value, and I decided to dedicate my time to saving this multi million dollar company some money. If you're not ok with that possibility than you probably shouldn't be participating in open source. And to be clear, there is nothing wrong with that. Its up…

It’s just why I have become disillusioned with it. I think companies exploit well-meaning people that should be paid for their work. I have used Linux and open source tools for roughly the last twenty years, a part of me loves open source, but I think that big corporations take advantage of this love and it devalues labor. Which is why I have stopped participating in it. If I am doing work that provides value to a co…

Here's what I figured: Company misallocates fund. On the other hand, many engineers are overpaid from the same perspective (most of us here are, have been, or will be at some point, if we step out of the bubble and stop gawking at the acquihire next door). So I'm happy to shift my side of the scale a tad bit by donating a few k here and there. We can do the reallocation ourselves and the more who do, the more difference it can start to make.

Which reminds me, it's about that time.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#313

Post by oefrha »

gwd wrote: post #295
oefrha wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good lesson that you should NOT do shady shit?

Do you never ever do anything that's wrong? If so, well, I guess good for you; but the rest of us sometimes screw up. There needs to be a path for redemption. Admit you were at fault, make it right, do better next time. ETA And , it doesn't matter whether people do the above steps because they "really mean it", or because they're just afraid of the consequences otherwise; any more than it matters, from a societal per…

They were given a chance to admit they were at fault. They instead bullshitted about “sloppy work”. You just don’t accidentally take someone else’s work, strip their name and brand it as your own, and brag about “built in three days” or some shit.

And even if they handled it very gracefully afterwards, don’t expect everyone to be happy about it. That’s Mashimo’s problem isn’t it, someone’s gonna criticize regardless. No shit!

Btw, I have never ever taken someone else’s work and brand it as my own without credit, or cheat someone in any other way (or at the very least, never intentionally). Thank you for asking. I don’t think that’s a high bar to clear.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#314

Post by dpb001 »

xandrius wrote: post #291
dheerajvs wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an interviewer, I'm seeing a huge increase in proportion of candidates cheating surreptitiously during video interviews. And it's becoming difficult to suspect any wrong-doing unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions. Why would anyone encourage building such a tool, I can't fathom.

Probably you've been out of the getting hired game but I had a glimpse of it last year: absolutely terrible. When I started you'd send a mail to the company directly about a position, you'd go to the office, have a short interview, meet the team and they'll let you know. That's it. Now it's 2 rounds of HR bs, 3 layers of tech interviews, then meet the CEO/CTO/etc. And then references and then a final "chat". And you…

I am old and thankfully out of the getting hired game. I was cleaning out some files (paper!) recently and ran across correspondence from old job searches. As you said, single visit and decision. I was also struck by the number of letters from companies thanking me for my resume and politely telling me they were passing but would keep me in mind for future openings. It was not uncommon to receive a letter directly from the hiring manager thanking me for coming to an interview.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#315

Post by sokoloff »

close04 wrote: post #311
sokoloff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe I misunderstood these words of yours, and provided you a ready reference to check for yourself whether YC had a code of ethics and whether that code contained the elements you were hand-wringing about. > If YC has no ethics code, that's your answer right there. If they do but it fails to mention basic things like lying, cheating, deceiving especially when done intentionally, bingo again. -------- > YC…

sokoloff, I already told you twice that I am referring to YC's (or any VC's) own code of ethics, for themselves . Not just the one for founders. The rules YC applies to themselves are the root of trust for everything that later comes out of the startups they finance. This issue could have been caught earlier and solved if YC checked for this earlier. And maybe it could even have been prevented if YC imposed harsher p…

Now I see the disconnect on the code of ethics. In my view, pg, dang, tomhow, rtm, Jessica, Garry, et al are members of the YC community within the meaning of the code and I think they think they are members of the community and bound by that code, making that YC’s code for all community members and therefore YC overall. You seem to conclude otherwise.

Setting that difference of interpretation aside, It’s difficult to figure out how and when exactly you think YC could have surfaced the problem with the repo that was published in the last 24 hours months ago when they made the funding decision.

Could you help me understand the notional timeline of actions that you think would have avoided this?

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#317

Post by Hamuko »

RobotToaster wrote: post #206
Disposal8433 wrote: post #75

And it has the same fake excuse as usual "Since this was our first OSS project, we didn’t realize at first." He sure discovered this new open source thing and it's very confusing. It's not like it's almost 40 years old at that point. I'll never understand people who lie like toddlers.

It's funny these "founders" only use this hollow excuse with open source licensing, you never see "since this was my first company, we didn't realize taxes exist"

It's usually never a blatant "I didn't realise taxes exist" but more like "I didn't know I couldn't add haircuts to my company's tax deducts".

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#318

Post by imwillofficial »

ibz wrote: post #282
danybittel wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "fund people" just hiring without the extra steps?

Isn't that what VCs in general are doing? Hiring for more money, with more expected gains from you, with a different kind of legal arrangement, but still hiring nevertheless.

No, words have meaning.

If i order fast food im not hiring the worker because i pay them.

Hiring means one thing, investing means something else.

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#319

Post by diggan »

danybittel wrote: post #247
diggan wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a very outspoken objective of YC, to fund people, not ideas? Long time ago I caught up to what YC is doing, but even when I first joined HN back in like 2013 I think the whole "Fund people, not ideas" shtick was already explicitly what they were doing, unless I remember wrong.

Isn't "fund people" just hiring without the extra steps?

If you're constraining them to work on specific things, then yes. Otherwise no :)

Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

#320

Post by tomhow »

jcgrillo wrote: post #307
tomhow wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s obviously diminutive and patronizing, and makes implications or assumptions about them and their families that are based on stereotypes or sparse information. It’s clearly against the guidelines and the guidelines aren’t discarded altogether just because a YC company is involved.

damn right it's diminutive, and why the hell not? these clowns and the idiots who fund their tomfoolery deserve it

We have no idea what the realities of their lives are.

We only know the basic facts of the wrongdoing that’s been reported here, which is of course fine to criticize.

Post reply on HN