Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
[dupe] Voice.ai Stole Open-Source Code, Banned Developer Who Informed Them About This (theinsaneapp.com)
174 points by schleck8 on Feb 19, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 20 comments



I wonder, it shouldn't be too hard to make a bot that automatically links to all previous discussions on each topic that's submitted...


It's not clear how to decide which threads to bundle together. Checking identical URLs is too narrow (e.g. the three threads mentioned have different URLs) and how to match by content isn't so easy.


With modern NLP models being extremely good, can't you bundle together all sites whose content embeddings are very close? Presumably there's an acceptable threshold somewhere that achieves a good tradeoff of false positives vs negatives?


It's possible. I haven't had time to look into it. If someone wanted to do a proof of concept it would certainly be interesting.


Build it and Show HN


Doesnt HN disallow bits of any kind?


no bits have been harmed in the making of this website


[flagged]


Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Even if you're right, it's not what this site is for and destroys what it is for. And you can always make your substantive points without it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


I saw someone refer to that as "The GPL is freedom for users, not developers"


[flagged]


I feel like you're trivializing a complex issue.

Developers have the right to say how they want their code to be used in the same way that authors have the right to say how their books can be used.

The code in a public repository doesn't have to be "free" for developers any more than publically downloadable piece of software has to be "free" for end-users.

For example, Microsoft offers a freely downloadable windows iso which people are not allowed to use use without a license.


Developers are users of libraries.


End users' rights.


Or they could have respected the license of the code they used.


>Open-source licenses are killing open-source

How? If I put my code on GitHub and I don't put an open source license on it, it's not open source, it's proprietary.


[flagged]


And my point is, if you take from a public repository yours is public too.

If you take, you give.


[flagged]


Taking without giving that's the real way to kill open source.


You're arguing for increasing developer freedom by removing their ability to issue the license of their choice?

There are licenses that provide no restrictions and licenses like GPL that do. Developers should be free to offer whatever licenses they want on their code.

Just because you like a particular kind of license, doesn't mean you should be able to make everyone who publishes a public repository use that license.


Have you seen the Ms-PL? It appears to be deliberately GPL incompatible while also having a similar list of conditions as the MIT license. I think it should be the default license for public repositories.


[flagged]


Section D is what makes it specifically GPL incompatible. The problem with not having ANY terms is that people can make derivatives of your software under new conditions, due to how copyright law works. You need conditions to impose the lack of conditions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: