←back to thread

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

(twitter.com)
931 points sohzm | 6 comments | 04 Jul 25 02:04 UTC | HN request time: 1.047s | source | bottom
Show context
Disposal8433 ◴[04 Jul 25 04:03 UTC] No.44461043[source]▶
And it has the same fake excuse as usual "Since this was our first OSS project, we didn’t realize at first."

He 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.

replies(4): >>44461821 #>>44462242 #>>44462471 #>>44462845 #
oaiey ◴[04 Jul 25 07:58 UTC] No.44462242[source]▶
I do not know what is wrong with software engineers. This is theft (or whatever the lawyers says in the IP law) and now stating: Ooops we did not know, our bad, we keep it till we have found a replacement. Mistakes happen also in real life, but libraries is a common thing, like cars standing on a street. You do not accidently steal a car.

Software Engineering is more than coding. Basic license management incl. library vetting is part of it. If you decide to ignore that, you do not run a business enterprise, you run a criminal enterprise.

replies(2): >>44462529 #>>44463088 #
ohdeargodno[dead post] ◴[04 Jul 25 10:06 UTC] No.44463088[source]▶
[flagged]
tomhow ◴[04 Jul 25 10:28 UTC] No.44463211[source]▶
> Playing with daddy's money

Personal attacks like this are not ok.

Sure, criticize their actions, but don't parlay that into this kind of personal swipe at the individuals and their families; that's when the line is crossed from valid critique of actions to nasty mob pile-on, and that's never ok here.

Not that it should matter but as far as I can tell, the Pickle founder/CEO grew up and studied in Korea, and we have no idea what their family circumstances were.

replies(4): >>44463390 #>>44463527 #>>44464057 #>>44464078 #
qualeed ◴[04 Jul 25 12:51 UTC] No.44464078[source]▶
Sometimes it's really surprising what comments you guys push back on and which ones you don't comment on. (Yes, I know, you can't see everything, etc.). I suspect it might be because this one wasn't dressed up enough.

While it is a personal attack, it is pretty tame compared to (non-flagged) comments I see here every day. I especially don't see it as a swipe at their family. Yet this is a pretty strong rebuke.

While I highly doubt it's because the subject is a YC pick, the optics aren't great.

replies(3): >>44464673 #>>44465083 #>>44465277 #
1. tomhow ◴[04 Jul 25 14:03 UTC] No.44464673[source]▶
There’s something about the point when anger at someone’s actions turns to trawling over someone’s backstory in order to attack/demean them as a person that crosses a line for me; I’ve always pushed back on it whenever I’ve seen it, on HN and elsewhere. People doing it and supporting it always think it’s “not that bad”; nobody likes to think of themselves as doing or supporting something bad.

Any time you see egregious comments on HN that aren’t flagged/dead, you should flag them and email us so we can take a look.

replies(2): >>44464714 #>>44464869 #
2. qualeed ◴[04 Jul 25 14:08 UTC] No.44464714[source]▶
>People doing it and supporting it always think it’s “not that bad”; nobody likes to think of themselves as doing “bad”.

So we're clear, because this implies I'm "supporting" it, I'm not. Just saying that this is more tame than many personal attacks I've seen, with a stronger response than I've seen (when there is a response). And, in this case, that gives off some bad optics/more ammo to people who are critical about when & why you moderate.

Without moderator transparency (which I've read the reasoning for, and can agree with!), optics is really all you've got.

replies(1): >>44464895 #
3. ohdeargodno ◴[04 Jul 25 14:28 UTC] No.44464869[source]▶
>someone’s actions turns to trawling over someone’s backstory

"using daddy's money" when talking about a VC funded founder is such a safe bet that if Berkshire Hathaway could invest in it, they would.

4. tomhow ◴[04 Jul 25 14:30 UTC] No.44464895[source]▶
In the context of this thread (and not other supposedly worse comments in other threads that I’m not able to evaluate), having allowed pretty much everything and anything to be said, I’m comfortable with this point - the point where things turn personally nasty - being the point where I draw a line and push back.
replies(1): >>44464930 #
5. qualeed ◴[04 Jul 25 14:34 UTC] No.44464930{3}[source]▶
>and not other supposedly worse comments

I'm guessing my comments are pushing on a sore spot, because you've implied that I support the personal attack when I've said clearly I don't, and now you're implying that I'm lying.

Sorry. I'll bow out.

replies(1): >>44465079 #
6. tomhow ◴[04 Jul 25 14:52 UTC] No.44465079{4}[source]▶
I’m not saying that at all. I just can’t explain the disparity in our responses when I don’t know exactly what the comparison is. I’m not surprised to hear you’ve seen worse things. As you concede, we can’t see everything and we don’t respond to everything and there are all kinds of reasons for handling things differently, a major one being randomness.

But in the context of this thread, it has largely been the free-for-all that people want it to be but I’ve drawn a line at one point where things crossed over into being personally nasty and I haven’t yet seen a reason why what was a wrong call. I know some people will criticize me for that and I’m comfortable with that.