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]

#501

Post by bayindirh » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 11:25 AM UTC

mopenstein wrote: post #467

XenophileJKO wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an open source software perspective, I don't understand the feelings around LLM ingestion. The models isn't generally recreating your software, but might be spreading your way of thinking in pieces. I get it from the artists and to a lesser degree, writers. I just don't understand it from software projects. I guess if you think of it as something to replace you, but since you are already a creator, it is also a…

[flagged]

I think the difference between Open Source and Free Software is not known enough.

Open Source software is not about users generally. It’s about other developers. Like a trade gathering. People in the know get there, get the tools they need, build the things they need with these open things and sell them to make a living. That’s fair. I understand, agree, and respect them.

Free Software’s different. Think like end users get the things they need with all the blueprints and specifications of that thing. They can do anything to these things, but if they want to share it, they have to share the new blueprints and specifications as well, to keep the thing available and free from abuse.

I’m in the second camp. I give you something for free, but there are terms attached. If you modify the thing, you have to give modifications away. Plus, you can’t integrate it into a tool which is or can be closed.

I just don’t want the thing i built for you to be closed and used against you to make your life more difficult. Because the aim was to make your life easier in the first place.

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

#502

Post by gryfft » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 11:44 AM UTC

ksec wrote: post #489

gryfft wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought tech companies were supposed to move fast and break stuff.

> I thought tech companies were supposed to move fast and break stuff. This mentality is relatively new. Or more like invented by Facebook and got marketed the heck by PRs and marketing firms. And now we have people who code before they think.

> And now we have people who code before they think.

Thanks to coding agents, now we can have engineers who do neither

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

#503

Post by immibis » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 1:44 PM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #501

mopenstein wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the difference between Open Source and Free Software is not known enough. Open Source software is not about users generally. It’s about other developers. Like a trade gathering. People in the know get there, get the tools they need, build the things they need with these open things and sell them to make a living. That’s fair. I understand, agree, and respect them. Free Software’s different. Think like end use…

Free Software is what you described, but Open Source is what some corporations invented, after Free Software started getting popular, in order to water it down and gain the respect of free software without actually delivering free software.

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

#504

Post by immibis » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 1:46 PM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #308

gpderetta wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we are sorry we got caught"

I would be running for the hills if I were YC. This is the kind of attitude that ends up in lawsuits.

Doesn't matter if you already made your money. And YC-funded companies are not YC. This is how business has always worked since the dawn of capitalism. All hugely successful businesses do illegal things.

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

#505

Post by immibis » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 1:57 PM UTC

rfl890 wrote: post #426

tombert wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but it sort of devalues labor. If a corporation is stealing your OSS code (and violating a license) then that implies that they think your code has value, they might have paid a person to write that code but instead some hobbyist built it for free and a corporation steals it. A few months ago, I made a pull request to LMAX Disruptor, which was merged. I was initially excited because even if my PR was simple it’s…

That's the caveat, the contract you sign when you start an open source project. You have to have the mindset of simply not giving a fuck about who does what with your code and how much they make from it. Then you can be at peace. If you don't want to (or can't) adopt that mindset for a particular project or at all, that's completely fine and normal. OSS is not for you. As soon as you want compensation for your work,…

Or use AGPL.

There's a reason some people call permissive licenses "cuck licenses".

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

#506

Post by tombert » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 2:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #490

tombert wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I made the patch to Disruptor as well, because I needed the change and I didn’t want to maintain it. I’m not saying that that’s valueless but I still think programmers should not be giving free labor to corporations. Canonical is at least a little better since they’re a much more FOSS-first company as opposed to a trading corporation, but my opinion still is the same with them. Also, completely unrelated,…

Does Canonical really make candidates take IQ tests?

They make you take the Thomas General Intelligence Assessment. It's not strictly "IQ" but it's still an "intelligence" metric.

The entire process is absurd. I wasn't joking when I said that the application required me to write a 9 page essay to even move forward. It took me two hours, and then I'm told I have to do some pop-psychology horseshit to prove my "intelligence" to these assholes.

I don't really like insulting people if there's any chance of the person actually seeing it, but I genuinely have to question the competence of anyone who thinks that this is a good use of the company's or candidates time. I genuinely think that the world would be better if they chose a different career.

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

#507

Post by Simon_O_Rourke » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 2:53 PM UTC

Gregaros wrote: post #376

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing whatever it takes to get the foot in the door may be encouraged, but only to a point and I think out and out cheating is probably crossing a line... As would murder, arson etc. etc. If cheating means asking someone in the company you're interviewing for a peek at what will be asked then great. In my book that's using leverage. Reviewing previously posted interview tests is probably recommended. Hooking up a cop…

> If cheating means asking someone in the company you're interviewing for a peek at what will be asked then great. In my book that's using leverage. In my book that is unambiguously unethical and should get the contact fired. I am shocked to see this approach promoted in such a blasé manner.

How is it unethical? Say you ask whoever what's being asked and they say you need to sort a string in place and then discuss how a random forest gets trained... You still need to answer those questions AND know enough to answer the follow up questions. If you're no good you'll be still found out. It just means you'll have a head start over someone without those kinds of contacts. So what level of utilizing your professional network crosses a line? Does a recommendation cross a line because I know for a fact that internal recommendations are moved to the head of the queue in most companies.

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

#508

Post by tombert » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 2:53 PM UTC

bigfatkitten wrote: post #496

tombert wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I made the patch to Disruptor as well, because I needed the change and I didn’t want to maintain it. I’m not saying that that’s valueless but I still think programmers should not be giving free labor to corporations. Canonical is at least a little better since they’re a much more FOSS-first company as opposed to a trading corporation, but my opinion still is the same with them. Also, completely unrelated,…

I almost applied for a job at Canonical once. As soon as I saw the first question about high school (which I finished almost 30 years ago), I closed that browser tab.

I was pretty annoyed that I had to try and find my old high school scores and try to sell myself about why I was really smart in high school. I graduated high school in 2009, sixteen years ago, I have attended multiple universities and graduate schools, what could they really glean from shit I did as a teenager?

I'm sure some middle manager read some article about the best way to hire candidates and implemented that, and maybe it really is the absolute best way of hiring, but it certainly rubbed me the wrong way.

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

#509

Post by KernalSanders » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 2:57 PM UTC

HacklesRaised wrote: post #160

One starts to wonder whether the LLM vendors laissez-faire approach to the legality of ingesting copyrighted / licensed material will start to infect the industry in general?

Stealing ideas has been the name of the game for a long, long time. It doesn't have to be like that. We just spent $50k defending one of ours, which yields no ROI unless we pull through and make it a reality. If someone has - money, sales and marketing skills, or other business competency, of course they'd rather steal than invent their own thing or invite the dev on board.

Again, this doesn't have to be this way. Either Y-Combinator needs to boot the thiefs and invite the original dev, the thiefs need to invite them in with a fair equity share, or else we continue to perpetuate this culture. And, I agree with others, creatives have already become more and more afraid of sharing their work and having it stolen. Ours was covered with a bullet proof contract that the other party presented us with. We also have a patent pending. Neither of those stop someone from stealing from you and it's your job to protect your IP (and money). It almost bankrupt us... but because it was their contract, our lawyer constantly was scratching his head since it was a slam dunk case.

Steve Jobs and Apple stole the UI from Xerox, Tesla wasn't Elon Musk's, and you can go down the list. Look up the history of Arduino and wiring. I have no problem buying Arduino knockoffs because of it. (The two profs that didn't give their grad student attribution have a history of stuff like this as well as infighting)

But it doesn't have to be like that, it's our choice to continue perpetuating it and it will lead to emergent properties that people won't like. The question is: how long can the party last for investors, incubators, and thief startup founders in our highly connected age?

Instead of waiting to find out, I hope that Y-Combinator and associated investors pioneer a better culture of rejecting these people when they find out and promoting the actual creators. Michael Seibel talked about the best creators not being the best networkers back at startup grind 2019, and that the old model of investing is broken. 6 years people. (I've been building a network of us who are expert at going out and finding the best creators, but it would be nice to have the resources and platforms of larger institutions).

Why don't we promote the actual creators OR pair those good at identifying the opportunities and pitching and marketing them. That would be WAY better, and everyone wins while making a better, long term sustainable culture and model.

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

#510

Post by tombert » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

immibis wrote: post #505

rfl890 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the caveat, the contract you sign when you start an open source project. You have to have the mindset of simply not giving a fuck about who does what with your code and how much they make from it. Then you can be at peace. If you don't want to (or can't) adopt that mindset for a particular project or at all, that's completely fine and normal. OSS is not for you. As soon as you want compensation for your work,…

Or use AGPL. There's a reason some people call permissive licenses "cuck licenses".

I am arguing that even if the language of the license is perfect by any criteria we define, enforcing them is unrealistic, especially for smaller projects.

I know there's been cases of big projects successfully suing companies that break the license (e.g. BusyBox), but if I just make some small utility on Github, even if it's licensed with AGPL, I don't have a ton of recourse. I don't have the ability to audit every project that might be violating it, and even if I did I don't have the capital to pay an attorney to sue for every possible violation.

If you're working for a company and that company is paying you to work on a project that they decide to FOSS later, great, you're being compensated for your work and I have no objection to that. Hobby projects are generally not compensated and as such I think it's better to keep them closed source.