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

Early Thoughts on Atom

dylanfoundry.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#41

Post by davexunit »

stormpat wrote: post #39
davexunit wrote: post #15

The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.

Why exactly should it bee free? Its free for beta, and i could speculate that the price for the editor is somewhere between 30-50 dollars. So if its too ethical to pay for quality software, just think about your own job, you get paid, right? Sublime is not free, still people create packages for it, for free. Do you mean that if the code is open to everyone, the software should not cost? Kind of weird, using open sour…

Free as in speech, not beer.

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#42

Post by davexunit »

morganherlocker wrote: post #32
davexunit wrote: post #15

The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.

Could it be forked and rebranded like iceweasel?

No.

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#43

Post by bowlofpetunias »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
davexunit wrote: post #15

The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.

If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick. If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.

Unfortunately "clear" is not a binary state.

Absolutely clear and honest would be something lie "we intend to take your free labor, declare it our property forever, make money of it en put it in our own pockets".

No one would consent to that, so organizations use weasel words or bury it in the small print. Mostly, they just obfuscate the consequences. Especially the "property" and "money" bits.

And yes, that is a "trick", even though by some definitions they are "clear" about it. Thousands of lawyers make a good living off that distinction.

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#44

Post by chimeracoder »

stormpat wrote: post #39
davexunit wrote: post #15

The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.

Why exactly should it bee free? Its free for beta, and i could speculate that the price for the editor is somewhere between 30-50 dollars. So if its too ethical to pay for quality software, just think about your own job, you get paid, right? Sublime is not free, still people create packages for it, for free. Do you mean that if the code is open to everyone, the software should not cost? Kind of weird, using open sour…

You are conflating free-as-in-freedom and free-as-in-beer.

Software can be free (as in freedom) and open source while still not being free as in beer (ie, charging money).

davexunit is commenting on the fact that the Atom editor is proprietary (non-free) software, which has nothing to do with whether or not they are charging for its use.

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#45

Post by chimeracoder »

dchuk wrote: post #19
davexunit wrote: post #15

The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.

I'm not well versed in the nuances of software licensing. Are there prominent examples of other projects using a similar setup? Or is Github unique in this? Or is it a case where Github's size/reach makes them unique in this at scale?

We don't have any details of the Atom license yet, but it sounds like it will be equivalent roughly to Microsoft's shared source licenses for proprietary code: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#46

Post by chimeracoder »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
davexunit wrote: post #15

The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.

If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick. If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.

I don't think it's clear at all. There are a number of users on the IRC channel who seem to think that Atom will be open-source, including some Github employees!

(Tom Preston Warner has already stated that Atom's core will not be open source)

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#47

Post by maxerickson »

chimeracoder wrote: post #46
maxerickson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick. If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.

I don't think it's clear at all. There are a number of users on the IRC channel who seem to think that Atom will be open-source, including some Github employees! (Tom Preston Warner has already stated that Atom's core will not be open source)

I think there is a 'before they start accepting contributions' implied.

Or are they already accepting contributions?

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#48

Post by maxerickson »

bowlofpetunias wrote: post #43
maxerickson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick. If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.

Unfortunately "clear" is not a binary state. Absolutely clear and honest would be something lie "we intend to take your free labor, declare it our property forever, make money of it en put it in our own pockets". No one would consent to that, so organizations use weasel words or bury it in the small print. Mostly, they just obfuscate the consequences . Especially the "property" and "money" bits. And yes, that is a "t…

Well, if they are charging money for the thing and they tell contributors they aren't going to get paid, I'm not sure there is much more of a puzzle to solve.

Let's rephrase everything: People should be aware of Github's lack of communication before they start messing with this too much.

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#49

Post by davexunit »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #35
doughj3 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU does the same thing.

I didn't know that – can you send me a link or give me some more context for it? My Google-fu didn't turn up anything.

Please read my response to doughj3, who is referring to the copyright assignment to the FSF required by some GNU projects.

Then, read this explanation from Eben Moglen about why the FSF does copyright assignment. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

Re: Early Thoughts on Atom

#50

Post by lunixbochs »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #34
lunixbochs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely slower than Sublime Text 3, but not by much and it's a pretty high bar.

How much slower? Slower doing what? It feels snappier to me at everything except for opening large files, but it's a beta – it's to be expected.

The framerate is visibly slower on drag to select. Opening a window takes forever.

The two major improvements for me are package management, and actual support for making GUIs.

Post reply on HN