My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
71–80 of 536 posts
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#72looks 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.
GPL is supposed to viral, if you are using project adopted that, you are taking the risk with it. If you are just changing the license and took the code, that's wrong and need to get an attention. If anyone could go just yoink and relicense the GPL code to other permissive license was "legal", the https://gpl-violations.org wouldn't exist in the first place (i.e. you can just take the linux kernel code and rename it something like "mynux", redistribute in bsd-3 clause and "don't distribute the derivative part").
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#74Things 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.
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#75He sure discovered this new open source thing and it's very confusing. It's not like it's almost 40 years old at that point. I'll never understand people who lie like toddlers.
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#76Earlier 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…
It only devalues labor if it's leveraged specifically to do so. You could make this argument about literally any volunteer activity, software related or otherwise. The real devaluation of labor comes from things like the "gig economy" where costs and compensation are abstracted such that companies can exploit the naivete of workers who, generally speaking, are not accustomed to things like amortization and accounting…
Why am I telling this story? Because it suggests to me that companies will only use these libraries if there is a guarantee of ongoing free labor; presumably they could use an old appropriate library and pay people to fix any issues as they come up. Admittedly, I know that some companies do exactly that, and that’s great, but I do not think it’s the majority.
I don’t think the people doing Open Source are bad people at all, far from it, in fact. I think a lot of these people are very smart and hard workers, and I think they should be compensated for their work, even if they are just “hobby projects”. If my project is creating value for a company, then that company can afford to pay me.
I don’t like the gig economy either but I don’t think it’s relevant to my complaints.
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#77looks 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.
Is the copyright still attributed to the original developer?
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#78Things 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.
Really? If you find a piece of proprietary software does basically the same thing as yours, and the binaries contains the same strings/artwork, then it's reasonable to make a legal case of it. You can even contact FSF and they'll take it further.
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There’s a million reasons to want to write open source. A lack of attribution in particular is a killer for motivation.
but yeah someone claiming it all falsely isnt good for the motivation
Re: My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
If our rights are contingent on taste then we have no rights at all.
Lacking sympathy for someone does not mean you condone them losing/lacking rights.