My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated] • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by Matthyze » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

There needs to be a path to redemption, yes, but this very clearly isn't it.

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

#442

Post by cootsnuck » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

dheerajvs wrote: post #173

npsomaratna wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the developer, but here is his repo: https://github.com/sohzm/cheating-daddy

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.

Honestly, why would you care? IF, and this is a big if, you are confident your interview process accurately assesses the abilities of candidates to carry out the role, then why would LLM assistance even matter? Are they not going to be allowed to use LLMs on the job?

This faux-outrage is just showing how broken the whole hiring process is in tech.

Stop giving people puzzles and just talk to them. If you're unable to evaluate if someone's a good fit for a role then you either need to learn more about effective interviewing, learn more about the role, or find someone else who is good at hiring/interviewing.

This has all been a long time coming.

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

#443

Post by pxc » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:17 PM UTC

p0nce wrote: post #303

Even if this was Apache in the first place, you're not supposed to remove Copyright lines in source code.

That's not the kind of thing you can reasonably say "Gee, I didn't know!" about, either.

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

#444

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:19 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #419

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The founders who built Glass don't complain about cheating. Rather, the developer of https://github.com/sohzm/cheating-daddy complained of copyright infringement of his code by the developers of Glass.

They complained of license violation, not copyright infringement. There’s a big difference. The original license already granted the rights for anyone to copy the code, so the question of copyright infringement isn’t really on the table.

If you don't abide by the license terms then you don't get to copy something under the license. So breech of license means corresponding copyright infringement.

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

#445

Post by Smeevy » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

qualeed wrote: post #428

Smeevy wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, that's not how someone gets that third comma in their net worth. The billionaires that so much of American society worship didn't make all of that money by being smart, kind, honest, or ethical. They made it by being dishonest, morally flexible, and ruthless. Especially now, business ethics are for the "little people." The modern billionaire class no longer cares about even keeping up the appearance of…

There's a lot of "comfortably wealthy" available between "charity company" and "billionaire" which can be achieved ethically, though.

There absolutely is. If you're absolutely gunning to get a billion dollars you won't be comfortable with any amount of money.

These people are hungry ghosts.

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

#446

Post by pxc » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

dheerajvs wrote: post #173

npsomaratna wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the developer, but here is his repo: https://github.com/sohzm/cheating-daddy

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.

> unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions

I've noticed that a lot of the supposed hallmarks of "AI slop writing" (em-dashes, certain multisyllabic words, frequent use of metaphor) are also just hallmarks of professional and academic writing. (It's true that some of them are clichés, of course.)

It seems like most efforts to instruct people on how to "fight back against AI writing" effectively instruct them to punish highly literate people as well.

I think it's often still possible to tell human writing that uses some of the same tropes or vocabulary apart from AI writing, but it's very vibes-based. I've yet to see specific guidance or characterizations of AI writing that won't also flag journalists, academics, and many random geeks.

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

#447

Post by pxc » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:25 PM UTC

csomar wrote: post #381

dheerajvs wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use LLMs to filter out participants and I expect candidates not to use LLMs to cheat.

Some first/introductory interviews are now "powered" by AI. As in, the interviewee gets an AI bot that evaluates them. I'd not be surprised if this takes over and becomes standard.

For now, this is perhaps a blessing in disguise: it tells you that a company is all aboard the hype train and that leadership is seriously lacking in critical thinking and judgment. That can certainly save you from wasting more time with them.

I really, really hope this does not become a "standard". Ugh.

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

#448

Post by pxc » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 4:30 PM UTC

dheerajvs wrote: post #173

npsomaratna wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the developer, but here is his repo: https://github.com/sohzm/cheating-daddy

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.

Indeed, I am sympathetic to the author in this situation because I think open-source is important, but I don't approve of this software and don't want to affiliate with it by even starring it on GitHub.

Not really sure what I can do for the author but say "that sucks, bro".

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

#449

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #444

dahart wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They complained of license violation, not copyright infringement. There’s a big difference. The original license already granted the rights for anyone to copy the code, so the question of copyright infringement isn’t really on the table.

If you don't abide by the license terms then you don't get to copy something under the license. So breech of license means corresponding copyright infringement.

[deleted]

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

#450

Post by ASalazarMX » Fri, Jul 04, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

qualeed wrote: post #385

mathiaspoint wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not understand what YC was? They're essentially an investment bank that doesn't accept new clients. They make money, they're not a charity. Quality only matters insofar as it drives sales and doesn't create liabilities.

> They make money, they're not a charity. I know it can be shocking to some people to learn this, but you can make money ethically .

> you can make money ethically

That's good, but what if the goal is min-maxing money making? Everything else becomes secondary.