←back to thread

431 points dangle1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.325s | source
Show context
arp242 ◴[] No.41861943[source]
The trolling was ridiculous. I don't blame them.

It was pretty clear that with "fork" they meant "don't create a WinAmp-ng fork" and not a "fork" in the "send a patch" GitHub sense. It's fine to point out "hey, I think your custom written license may need a bit of work!", but the amount of vitriol and hate over it (including on HN) was just ridiculous.

It was one of those moments I was embarrassed to be posting here.

And yes, they could have done better, sure. But instead of bringing in someone in the community you just chased them away. Well done everyone. Good job. Excellent result. A story to tell the grandchildren.

replies(10): >>41861982 #>>41862140 #>>41862181 #>>41862384 #>>41862498 #>>41862655 #>>41862720 #>>41862771 #>>41862822 #>>41862868 #
1. Shawnecy ◴[] No.41862720[source]
I don't agree with this take. First, licenses are what court cases and a system of laws are built on. You can't exactly fork a repo with a bad license and hope for the best. Second, this article is downplaying the fact that the repo included a lot of libraries whose licenses they were violating by including it in their repo, and there was no easy way to make the code work without those libraries. The poor license they wrote was just one of a myriad of issues. I think The Register's article is more accurately worded in this regard[0].

[0] = https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winam...