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

511–520 of 536 posts

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

#511

Post by KernalSanders »

bayindirh wrote: post #260
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?

I, for one, deserted GitHub, and do not use for anything else personal anymore. I'm not against permissive licensing, but all my code will be (A)GPLv3 or later. A particular project I'm working on will be on a private Git server until I complete and open it as a package. Even after that, I might keep the development closed and release tarballs only (aka Catherdral Model). All code I write is also AI-Free. It won't be…

Ya, I custom coded our startups entire bespoke sensor array and smart systems. No AI. It was build before LLMs gains the traction that we see now. I tested several models to see if they could build the same. They can't yet.

My code will never be publicly available. That's a key trade secret of our business. When investors and others tell us that someone else could build it, I let them know that they could build their own, similar version, but it wouldn't be what we have.

We've verified that by having friends and family, some of the best coders that we know - Stanford, MIT, and other CS alum, as well as top FAANG programmers - try to reproduce it. It's always something done in their own style that doesn't do the job as it needs to be done (they work ok, but they all miss some key crucial parts of why our system succeeds at what it does).

GitHub is good for those looking for a job or to share their projects openly. I wouldn't even trust a private repo. Everything is either on systems and servers that we have control over or in my head. As we grow and scale, we have a roadmap for how to keep control over those trade secrets until it's time to pass off the company (if we do). At that point, I'm confident that whoever takes over will realize that this will be like the Coca Cola recipe, or any other trade secret which could be reproduced but not necessarily in the same way. (Knowing the history of that recipe and what others have created that tastes identical, it's more apocryphal and maybe not a perfect example, but you get the idea).

Anything controlled by another company is something out of your hands. Pick and choose wisely where you keep your stuff.

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

#512

Post by ddingus »

diggan wrote: post #384
ddingus wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch! I believe in OSS. But damn. I had not really considered this move. I had a stray thought and that is most SI content I have looked at has watermarks of a sort. Perhaps this could be used?

I dunno, even after considering that move, I'll continue to publish FOSS like before. I always did it without any expectation of gains from it, and with the intention for people to use it for whatever they want. That calculation hasn't changed, even considering machines will slurp it up now. I do agree that it sucks for people who do care about what the code is used for, and I hope these people migrate to other licen…

I will do the same. I am aligned with ESR basically, as expressed in "The Clue Train Manifesto."

Use value of OSS remains high. Because of that, when I can add to the body of OSS, I do. People will do what they do.

All I control is me. They do them.

We all benefit from the high use value.

I do wish those who have made fortunes would contribute more and keep their roots, and the labor of many high quality humans just a bit more firmly in mind.

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

#513

Post by hollerith »

ddingus wrote: post #512
diggan wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, even after considering that move, I'll continue to publish FOSS like before. I always did it without any expectation of gains from it, and with the intention for people to use it for whatever they want. That calculation hasn't changed, even considering machines will slurp it up now. I do agree that it sucks for people who do care about what the code is used for, and I hope these people migrate to other licen…

I will do the same. I am aligned with ESR basically, as expressed in "The Clue Train Manifesto." Use value of OSS remains high. Because of that, when I can add to the body of OSS, I do. People will do what they do. All I control is me. They do them. We all benefit from the high use value. I do wish those who have made fortunes would contribute more and keep their roots, and the labor of many high quality humans just…

>I am aligned with ESR basically, as expressed in "The Clue Train Manifesto."

You mean "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Both were published about the same time, long ago, but Eric had nothing to do with "Clue Train".

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

#514

Post by kiitos »

tombert wrote: post #506
tptacek wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 insulti…

I have worked with a statistically significant number of ex-Canonical engineers and have not come away with a positive impression of that organization.

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

#515

Post by michaelmrose »

jcelerier wrote: post #302
michaelmrose wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the assumption that the license.txt in a given revision is accurate an applicable is erroneous. One is expected to follow the license.txt in the main repo regardless of revision.

Absolutely not, if a project relicensed and someone on earth did a git clone with a previous license that gave some specific rights, the previous commits keep their license (or if the license was incorrect you can go to court)

I don't think a court is going to understand git revisions. I also don't think a person reverting to timepoint 1 with license A changes the fact that they received it at time point 2 offered under license B.

At best the license.txt that accompanies a particular revision can serve as a sign post of what license applies it is not dispositive and if the sign post is wrong it was your bad for failing to understand what license applied before distributing.

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

#516

Post by tombert »

kiitos wrote: post #514
tombert wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 insulti…

I have worked with a statistically significant number of ex-Canonical engineers and have not come away with a positive impression of that organization.

I was pretty disappointed by their entire process, and I guess if their goal was to weed out candidates who don't want to spend days indulging them in pop-psychology bullshit and writing multiple projects after writing nine pages of answers to questions, then they achieved their goal.

I would have loved to be paid to work on FOSS stuff, but this interview process was too stupid.

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

#517

Post by laurencerowe »

alganet wrote: post #483
awwright wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that itself just a variation on the ini syntax, sort of made concrete by PHP, itself adapted from DOS? https://www.php.net/parse_ini_file

Yes. I think this also supports my case. For me, it was obvious to use `parse_ini_file` because it greatly improved performance (I didn't had to parse it by hand) and familiarity (PHP users already know ini). On the other hand, there is no reason for toml to have chosen ini. Almost no other language had efficient ini parsers at the time, or any culture related to ini files whatsoever. It sounds like a strange choice…

Python’s built in ConfigParser has an ini like syntax and was widely used.

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

#518

Post by tomhow »

bigyabai wrote: post #481
tomhow wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of us knows exactly what this specific person did or what their motivation, intention or understanding of the situation was. We only know what was in the company’s code that was published, and we know what they’ve done since to try and address it. “Roasting” is one word for something that can be described in far more serious terms. It’s against the HN guidelines and the guidelines still have to be upheld to some…

Now you are the one making reaching speculation. As far as we know, these people are conspiring to do the exact same thing because the present damages has been $0 in fines/legal fees and a reasonably successful seed round. In terms of game theory, there is zero reason to give them benefit of the doubt until they are sat in a court hearing for the infraction. They ventured nothing and gained everything. If you want to…

My speculation is based on well-established heuristics like Hanlon’s Razor and the presumption that people act in line with their incentives.

From the earliest time I became involved with YC (nearly 17 years ago) it was drummed into us that you don’t mess around with IP, because it kills funding rounds, acquisitions and commercial deals, and harms one’s reputation and stirs up unwelcome attention just like this.

I’ve been subjected to suspected theft of my IP by a client and I can absolutely empathize with the feeling of outrage from people who’ve been subjected to this; it was one of the very worst things I’ve experienced in my career.

But there are well-established conventions for how to deal with it, which begins with a demand to stop doing it and not do it again (“cease and desist”).

Of course this company should stop and not do it again and it’s completely reasonable for them to be held to account on that.

But if HN commenters are demanding someone else be honest and honorable, they need to be willing to hold themselves to the same standard, and it’s a basic societal norm that we allow legal processes to progress and not take matters into their own hands with personal vilification/mockery or exaggerated/unfounded allegations.

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

#520

Post by bigfatkitten »

tombert wrote: post #506
tptacek wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 insulti…

Some of the smartest and most capable people I’ve ever worked with came from government agencies where you send in your CV, write a max 700-800 word spiel about why you’d be a good fit for the role, and then do a 30-60 minute interview if you look good enough on paper to be shortlisted.

It’s a surprisingly efficient and low-bullshit process.

Post reply on HN