61–70 of 536 posts
[flagged]
BTW, the X Formally Known As Twitter company is not the only one who conduced the world to this, all big names do link restriction. Look what we've become, such nice world :)
looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889... let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free. people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.
You are ignoring the fact that they claimed that they "built it in just 72 hours", accidentally omitting to mention that it's a fork of another repo.
Things like this are why I have become disillusioned with Open Source, and why latest projects have been closed source. The GPL is a good enough idea but it is basically impossible for anyone to realistically enforce. If a corporation is selling an optimized binary, then it can be almost impossible to prove that there was any violation of the GPL without viewing the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're talking about the remote work scammer in the news today, that's Soham Parekh. This is Soham Bharambe. Both are into cheating, apparently... For those that missed it: https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/03/who-is-soham-parekh-the-se...
The Year of Soham on HN.
* The extended meaning of "hacking" is required to correctly understand this sentence.
looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889... let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free. people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.
If it was 'just' a licensing slip up sure, but there's still a lot of integrity issues here despite that. The presentation of "we created an open source library to do X in just days" comes across as a lie right? I feel like ycombinator leads may want to look more deeply into this one. If they are presenting it as something they've achieved that's an integrity issue right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A GPL violation is a GPL violation.
I made an OSS tool to help you cheat on your taxes, screw your business partner, or ensure your ex wife cannot see the children. Someone stole the source and is backed by a major VC firm. Is the thought different at all or exactly the same? Just raising the question.
The point is being "GPL evil" is GPL. Taking the code, not obtaining the copyright, and re-licensing it is a clear violation of copyright law and immoral.
We are not little children in the playground. Two wrongs do not make a right, and rights are most important for bad people
[flagged]
its not the best name tbh, i just made it as a meme but people take the name seriously and that hurts the case ive posted the evidence in twitter thread link
Things like this are why I have become disillusioned with Open Source, and why latest projects have been closed source. The GPL is a good enough idea but it is basically impossible for anyone to realistically enforce. If a corporation is selling an optimized binary, then it can be almost impossible to prove that there was any violation of the GPL without viewing the source.
Well, if you're writing open source because you want to write open source, then none of this matters. If you are worried about corporations stealing your work, that should drive you away from OSS. OSS should stay "hobbyist" for the individual developer.
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 still a big project that I contributed to. But after a few minutes it occurred to me that I just did free labor for a for-profit trading company. If they merged in my code then must have thought it had some value, and I decided to dedicate my time to saving this multi million dollar company some money.
My PR there was pretty simple and only took me like 30 minutes (if that), so I am not going to cry too hard over this, but it’s just something that made me realize that if a company is going to use my work, they should pay me. I don’t think it’s wrong or weird to want to be compensated for my labor.
I am still a hobbyist. Turns out you can still be a hobbyist without sharing everything you’ve ever done on GitHub.
looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889... let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free. people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.
From what I understand, it would be a breach of contract at minimum (based on what I remember from past discussions of this sort of activity involving different participants). If someone else has a better idea of what “forking GPL 3 source code and using a different licence” would be, then please let me and others know.