Earlier quoted context omitted.
LGPL exists too.
Sure, but the thread was initially about GPL.
When I see expressions like "GPL > MIT" I understand them more as comparing license families, not specific licenses.
I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
401–410 of 419 posts
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that making your product AGPL would being you more money/recognition/jobs for your effort?
I don't know. I have no comparison but it is common for crates to be released under MIT. I took over the maintainership from the original author so the license was already there. I rewrote pretty much everything so I guess I could try changing the license now but that's not something I wanna think about. I do the work because I see it as payback for all the great open source software I use all the time.
Nah, forget this attitude of yours. You created something that a behemoth like Anthropic uses and literally noone thought about compensating you. Kick the ladder out of them, and go hard on their balls.
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
first of all because the key point is they didn't even look at his application, and by any objective criteria he should have easily got through a "worth a human looking at it" screen. but also, hiring the developer of an open source library that you want to use internally and paying them to both integrate the library and work further on it is an excellent way to have a sustainable open source ecosystem, which both an…
> first of all because the key point is they didn't even look at his application (...) Apparently the only suggestion that OP's application might not have been considered was due to the fact it was filed already too late in the hiring process. Do you think every hiring process should restart whenever a new applicant sends a resume? > (...) and by any objective criteria he should have easily got through a "worth a hum…
> I mean, I'm yet to work at a company where a software engineer position is so reductive and constrained that a developer has a single very specialized responsibility.
What's the largest company you've worked at that was a tech company?
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. There's nothing wrong with just making something for free and giving it away if that's what you want. Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many…
> choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. This has been debated a lot already. It depends whose freedom we are talking about. It is overly simplistic to define MIT as more free.
It's not overly simplistic at all. It inarguably gives more freedom to do as any entity wishes with the code.
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. There's nothing wrong with just making something for free and giving it away if that's what you want. Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many…
> Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. MIT license is absolutely not 'more free' than the GPL. In fact, MIT means you give up effective ownership and control. You lose control and contributions. And what do you get for that loss of control? Exposure. Or, in this and many other cases similar, you get diddly shit. Some company paracitizes your co…
> you get diddly shit
> If you're making money on my stuff, I want a cut. Simple as that.
It's clear that you're motivated by personal compensation for your work, which is fine, but it means you shouldn't license it as MIT. Other people are motivated by knowing that their work is useful to others, and those people shouldn't use GPL because it hinders that aim.
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#406Hey, I'm the author of the blog post. Thank you for submitting this. If you have any questions feel free to ask and please let me know how the writing was. It's one of my first posts so I'd like to improve
If they use any form of filtering / evaluation along the line of STAR, the positive way you chose to deal with it plus the outcome of it being a top post on HN should score you half the position already, good luck :)
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#407Oh man, hiring is so broken, so basically:
"we want to hire someone to work in this super secret feature that uses lib X"
"cool! I'm the author of lib X"
"no, thanks"
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#408Hey, I'm the author of the blog post. Thank you for submitting this. If you have any questions feel free to ask and please let me know how the writing was. It's one of my first posts so I'd like to improve
UPDATE: Two people from Anthropic recommended me internally and their HR department already rejected the application. They recommended me for jobs where you need more experience with AI, so I agree that I wasn't a good fit for those positions. Thank you for your recommendations anyways. That was very kind.
A number of other people contacted me with offers so it looks like there will be a happy end to the story :-)
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets make a new license: If you wont hire me, use my library and make over $100m in revenue a year, you must pay a commercial license to use my software equivalent to the total cost (equity grants included) of an average principal engineer or director who manages 50+ people at your company in your highest COL metro, whichever is higher. For OSS work that isn't mostly one author, make it go to the foundation for the O…
It’s a nice idea but couldn’t a big company simply move its engineering team to a subsidiary that doesn’t get sales revenue? (I’m not an accountant!) Would be hilarious to bury a clause like “Modified MIT license — head of HR must publicly announce any employment application rejections of the maintainers while wearing a chicken suit).”
The idea is to make it cheaper to pay you than it is to do silly stuff. 1 principal engineer is a fart for these huge companies, but can be $500k-$3m/yr, which is huge for OSS projects. Small companies that are not big tech in the USA don't pay that much so they will get a cheaper price, etc.
Companies usually have no problem paying for stuff that saves them money, but need to be forced to do so if there is a cheaper alternative. There is a very specific reason why I put the cost matching their own staffing costs, it's so the company will choose the easier and cheaper option vs. doing the more expensive option of hiring staff to make it themselves.
They can also get it even cheaper by hiring the maintainer at a sr or staff eng cost. You create the financial ammo so staff inside can do the right thing.
And these shenanigans are usually sidestepped with subsidary type of language that places like the EU uses for enforcing laws.
Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets make a new license: If you wont hire me, use my library and make over $100m in revenue a year, you must pay a commercial license to use my software equivalent to the total cost (equity grants included) of an average principal engineer or director who manages 50+ people at your company in your highest COL metro, whichever is higher. For OSS work that isn't mostly one author, make it go to the foundation for the O…
That would just open the door to commercial competitors to undercut the price by reverse engineering it ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design ). You'd be playing on the proprietary software industry's home turf and they will straight up curb stomp you.
No, because it's still significantly cheaper than any commercial option will be. You think the commercial place will charge less than 100 principle engineers to Google, lol no.