Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farewell, neighbors

blog.everyblock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#81

Post by cedrichurst »

juan_juarez wrote: post #76
cedrichurst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this code is GPLV3. It's really curious how the source code became out-of-date. Isn't that a violation of the license?

Just because this code is released under GPLv3 it doesn't mean that the main codebase is GPLv3. They have complete ownership of their own code & can do as they will with it. The GPL only controls the rights of other people that want to use it.

Thank you for the clarification. I've humbly been schooled in the nature of opensource copyright law.

At any rate, I've started a petition to open up the source code and user-generated content to the public domain:

https://www.change.org/petitions/msnbc-open-source-the-every...

I was on the site nearly every day and poured hours of my life writing community posts, updating information, etc. This may not mean much to people outside of Chicago, but stuff like the epic debate between Eddie Carazana and Jim DeRogatis on the future of the Congress Theater, gone forever?

https://www.google.com/search?q=carazana+dirogatis+everybloc...

It's a part of history. And the fact that a media conglomerate erased it from the web with zero notice is, frankly, troubling.

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#82

Post by cedrichurst »

jlev wrote: post #71
genwin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From GPLV3: "One of the fundamental requirements of the GPL is that when you distribute object code to users, you must also provide them with a way to get the source." Presumably MSNBC didn't distribute object code to users, in which case they have no obligation to open-source any derivative work.

And that's why you should use the Affero GPL for web services. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html MSNBC really screwed the pooch on this one, from their initial "open source" via zipfile, to the zero-day shutdown. Not what the Knight Foundation intended to fund with their open source requirements.

Per another thread of discussion, apparently the rules of the GPL do not apply to the licensor, only the licensee. If MSNBC accepted OSS community contributions to the Everyblock codebase, they might be in violation. But if it was a one-way offering, they can apparently still retain full rights. I imagine the initial Mozilla-Knight foundation grant makes this a bit more complex, but IANAL.

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#83

Post by quomopete »

This is amazingly(!) ham-fisted on the part of NBC. everyblock.com was pretty vibrant from what I could tell. And being forced to shutter overnight is about as unprofessional as it gets (again, I understand this as, without a doubt, some NBC exec throwing a temper tantrum and not realizing the value of their own assets when hitting the nuke button).

I saw a lot of connecting going on there, in a way that is much more valuable than other social websites in that people could use it as a way to promote and share local/in the flesh resources and information and it brought a lot of value to the people who used it. That there was no warning, no way for people to reach out to others they'd like to stay in touch with after the shutdown is reckless decision making. Just a full-on, ridiculous implosion. Social capital is a real thing, and it's too bad that NBC does not consider that in their ledger.

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#84

Post by yuliyp »

brk wrote: post #11
brador wrote: post #7

Startups, please don't do this. Users can become surprisingly dependent on your site, give a week warning before closing out if you can. It's not too much to ask and gives users time to prepare, move data, swap contact details, backup and such.

Users, please don't become highly dependent on "free" sites with no obvious or proven business model.

The general idea is that startups which shut down like this impose a cost on _every other startup_ out there, because it makes people more hesitant to actually use and rely on services provided by startups due to their memory of being burned. Yes, this includes the next startup that the people working on that particular startup are going to work on too.

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#85

Post by whyaduck »

clicks wrote: post #74
knowtheory wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where to from here Adrian? Do you know whether the current team is staying on at NBC or are they looking for new gigs? And it'd be interesting to hear what you and the other founders have been working on as well.

> And it'd be interesting to hear what you and the other founders have been working on as well. I'm not Adrian, but I'll answer for a small part: Adrian released a guitar album, and made http://www.soundslice.com/ (a guitar tab site, that plays tabs to Youtube videos)

Ok...soundslice is fantastic! What a great tool!

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#86

Post by illuminate »

brador wrote: post #7

Startups, please don't do this. Users can become surprisingly dependent on your site, give a week warning before closing out if you can. It's not too much to ask and gives users time to prepare, move data, swap contact details, backup and such.

"give a week warning before closing out if you can. It's not too much to ask"

Do you think that the "one week period" is going to get continued funding? I doubt most are given that much time ahead to prepare, let alone able to prepare to give the users the ability to prepare.

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#87

Post by sjs382 »

cedrichurst wrote: post #63
sjs382 wrote: post #52

I doubt this repo is current, but the code for everyblock is open source: https://code.google.com/p/ebcode/ Also, a fork: https://github.com/openplans/openblock

The fact that this code is not current is extremely surprising, actually. It's GPLV3-licensed, so my somewhat uninformed expectation is that MSNBC would be obligated to open-source any derivative works? Unless they did a complete rewrite of the codebase at some point. I created a petition asking MSNBC to open-source the latest codebase and also release the user-generated content to the public domain: https://www.chan…

Presumably they own the full copyright, so they can license it to themselves under any license they want (non-GPL3, non-AGPL3)

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#89

Post by anthonyb »

cedrichurst wrote: post #81
juan_juarez wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because this code is released under GPLv3 it doesn't mean that the main codebase is GPLv3. They have complete ownership of their own code & can do as they will with it. The GPL only controls the rights of other people that want to use it.

Thank you for the clarification. I've humbly been schooled in the nature of opensource copyright law. At any rate, I've started a petition to open up the source code and user-generated content to the public domain: https://www.change.org/petitions/msnbc-open-source-the-every... I was on the site nearly every day and poured hours of my life writing community posts, updating information, etc. This may not mean much to…

https://www.google.com/search?q=carranza+derogatis+site:ever... might work a little better...

Re: Farewell, neighbors

#90

Post by jlgaddis »

cedrichurst wrote: post #82
jlev wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's why you should use the Affero GPL for web services. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html MSNBC really screwed the pooch on this one, from their initial "open source" via zipfile, to the zero-day shutdown. Not what the Knight Foundation intended to fund with their open source requirements.

Per another thread of discussion, apparently the rules of the GPL do not apply to the licensor, only the licensee. If MSNBC accepted OSS community contributions to the Everyblock codebase, they might be in violation. But if it was a one-way offering, they can apparently still retain full rights. I imagine the initial Mozilla-Knight foundation grant makes this a bit more complex, but IANAL.

The key is distribution.

Anyone can take a piece of GPL'd software and modify it as much as they'd like for their own use. There is absolutely no requirement to publish or "contribute back" those changes. (Think, for example, about Amazon customizing or modifying Xen for EC2. They do not have to publish their modified code or share it with "the community".)

If, however, you share binary/compiled/etc. forms of your modifications, you are then required to make the source code available.

Post reply on HN