My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

This being on page 2 with 247 upvotes in the three hour time period this post has been up is surprising to me. I wouldn't be surprised if @dang is suppressing it (but I'd also be happy to hear that it's not being suppressed).

It's pretty spineless for the Pickle team to come out and pretend they mistakenly re-licensed GPL code. Hilarious.

> in initially building it we included code from a GPL-licensed project that we incorrectly attributed as Apache

How can you write a sentence like that in good faith?

The first rule of HN moderation is that we moderate (i.e., intervene) less if a story reflects negatively on a YC company or YC itself.

This principle goes right back to pg days, and was the first thing he taught dang [1].

That said, it doesn't mean we avoid moderation at all and it doesn't mean the guidelines all go out the window.

Different factors influence the story's rank and visibility on the front page: upvotes, flags, the flamewar detector, and settings to turn these penalties on/off. I'm actively watching the thread to keep it on the front page, as per the rule.

That said, the guidelines ask us to avoid fulmination and assume good faith. Whilst it's fair enough to criticize and question a company when they do something like this, we can also be adult enough to look the evidence before us and recognize that this was most likely a dumb mistake that they've moved quickly to correct.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

The evidence clearly shows it was not a 'dumb mistake'

They claim they wrote the whole thing in 4 days. They did not attribute the original author in ANY way.

They clearly showed they intended to steal the authors work and sell it as if they wrote it. YC has just become such a dumpster fire if that kind behaviour is even remotely accepted or called a 'dumb mistake'