←back to thread

431 points dangle1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
AlienRobot ◴[] No.41862384[source]
I saw a guy on youtube complaining about it. He seemed to talk about FLOSS a lot and focus on the strict definition of "open source."

I checked his github profile and he barely published anything.

So here we have a company that made all of the code of a complete application source available being dunked by a guy who barely published any source code at all.

Really put things in perspective for me.

replies(2): >>41862457 #>>41902818 #
fsflover ◴[] No.41862457[source]
The company broke a copyleft license though.
replies(1): >>41862576 #
AlienRobot ◴[] No.41862576[source]
And if they didn't publish the code nobody would ever know about it, so what do you think the other companies will do?
replies(1): >>41862651 #
fsflover ◴[] No.41862651{3}[source]
Not breaking laws, because it can be eventually revealed one way or another? I only half joking.
replies(1): >>41863894 #
1. cookiengineer ◴[] No.41863894{4}[source]
Not joking: maybe we need tools to audit / disassemble binaries and match their symbols against known GPL libraries?

Would help a lot, I think.