←back to thread

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

(twitter.com)
931 points sohzm | 1 comments | 04 Jul 25 02:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
JonChesterfield ◴[04 Jul 25 10:38 UTC] No.44463274[source]▶
"Fair enough. Since this was our first OSS project, we didn’t realize at first. We’ve now revised it. Thanks for your contribution."

We didn't notice that we copied your codebase, changed the name then pretended to have built it in four days?

Good grief.

replies(4): >>44463726 #>>44464302 #>>44464429 #>>44465698 #
gpderetta ◴[04 Jul 25 11:52 UTC] No.44463726[source]▶
"we are sorry we got caught"
replies(2): >>44463787 #>>44464227 #
reactordev ◴[04 Jul 25 12:03 UTC] No.44463787[source]▶
I would be running for the hills if I were YC. This is the kind of attitude that ends up in lawsuits.
replies(4): >>44463989 #>>44464390 #>>44464431 #>>44472783 #
gryfft ◴[04 Jul 25 12:38 UTC] No.44463989[source]▶
I thought tech companies were supposed to move fast and break stuff.
replies(2): >>44464096 #>>44470104 #
whilenot-dev ◴[04 Jul 25 12:54 UTC] No.44464096[source]▶
I think that phrase was coined in an era when the tech sector moved so fast that the prevailing law couldn't keep up. It caught up somewhat, but obviously there's still much leeway for improvement. Break all the wrong habits, rigid conventions and old traditions you want, just play along with the governing laws.
replies(3): >>44464196 #>>44464247 #>>44464896 #
Nextgrid ◴[04 Jul 25 13:07 UTC] No.44464196[source]▶
> the tech sector moved so fast that the prevailing law couldn't keep up

That's an extremely charitable interpretation.

A more realistic interpretation is that the law was up to date, just that enforcement couldn't keep up because 1) nobody expected such a brazen level of breaking the law and 2) justice doesn't really apply when you have enough capital.

replies(1): >>44464337 #
whilenot-dev ◴[04 Jul 25 13:22 UTC] No.44464337[source]▶
> A more realistic interpretation is that the law was up to date

While I wouldn't disagree with your sentiment, just keep in mind that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) got implemented 2018.

replies(2): >>44464416 #>>44464689 #
Jon_Lowtek ◴[04 Jul 25 14:04 UTC] No.44464689[source]▶
Little known fact: GDPR replaced the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) from 1995 which itself replaced the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, written in 1981. Now if you compare these three, there is enough details to get an undergrads degree in law, but on the high level the tenor did not change much. Those who were struggling in 2018 to meet GDPR criteria before the grace period of two years ended were most likely not struggling with details, but in blatant violation of almost 40 year old rules. Well one of the details probably mattered: the fines went up considerably.
replies(1): >>44464815 #
1. aleph_minus_one ◴[04 Jul 25 14:21 UTC] No.44464815[source]▶
> Those who were struggling in 2018 to meet GDPR criteria before the grace period of two years ended were most likely not struggling with details, but in blatant violation of almost 40 year old rules.

At least in Germany at the time of GDPR, the startups (and also bigger companies) were struggling with the insane amount of compliance requirements, and the uncertainty how to actually interpret these legal requirements also in terms of federal law.

In other words: these (German) companies (and startups) clearly obeyed the spirit of these, as you say, 40 year old laws, but struggled hard with the formal red-tape requirements of GDPR.