4 ms·
Not really, since the original software is released under an open source license, in this case the MIT license which allows for monetization as long as the term
by ent101 7y ago
Not really, since the original software is released under an open source license, in this case the MIT license which allows for monetization as long as the terms are followed. If the poster hadn't followed the terms we wouldn't be ok with it.
This is common on mobile app stores too: for example there are many variations of the ZXing barcode app which all follow the terms of the open source license, some are even paid apps.
Another example would be cloud services offering commercial products based on mysql, redis, elastic...
- jacquesm 7y agoWho is to say the poster isn't you, after all you are submitting the link here too to draw traffic to it. I don't like the smell of this even if it may be following the letter of the law. You are essentially monetizing other people's work without even notifying the original authors so they can claim their own work.
- recursive 7y agoYour beef is with open source licenses.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoIt's really not. As a community, do we want to be sending eyeballs to the original source, or a monetized copy? OP is free to do what he or she is doing, we are free to block it as spam or link to the original source.
- 40four 7y agoI don't know man... I tend to agree with @recursive here. I think some of you guys aren't treating the poster fairly. I can see why this would get some people fired up. It definitely feels a little gross presented in this manner. But... it IS MIT liscense. Nobody made the author release it this way. He could have easily released the demo on his own website and not provided the code "without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies". I'm glad people pointed out the original author, I just went and browsed his codepen page. But we have to assume he is OK with people coyping or even selling the code assuming the license is not breached.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoI'm not complaining about the existence of Outpan, or trying to mount some defense of the original author. I'm saying that links to this kind of aggregator have no place on Hacker News. What benefit is it to the community to have the authorship hidden and ads added? Talking about licensing is orthogonal to my point. Blogspam is totally legal and not accepted here. This is no different.
- jacquesm 7y ago> But we have to assume he is OK with people coyping or even selling the code assuming the license is not breached. https://twitter.com/jake_albaugh/status/1195535720640856065 https://twitter.com/jake_albaugh/status/1195535720640856065
- reitzensteinm 7y agoI agree the site should be banned.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoYou're not breaking any contracts or laws, but posting a clone of a previously discussed project with ads tacked on by a third party is worthless spam. I flagged the link and I suggest others do the same. Not the first spam, one of which was even titled Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ent101 https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ent101
- ent101 7y agoI didn't know this project was posted before; that's my fault and I apologize for it. I have contacted the mods to remove the post if they feel so. That said, I have never tried to spam HN, just posted links from our site which I thought the community might like, I'm sorry if it came across as spammy.