4 ms·

>> But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? > Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they'

>> But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? > Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie. First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. Second, you literally have contributors themselves starting to come to defend him against you: > I’m @{name} in your CC list and I was hired to work on Octotree. I’m no longer involved, but I was there when we rewrote Octotree. Just so you know. Is it possible some people may have been wronged here? Sure. Is it possible they haven't? Yes. We don't know, but even before you even knew some were paid and all that, you'd already leveled an accusation against them of bad faith and gotten people all across the world piling on. Given you've gotten at least part of this wrong so far, one would think maybe a less confidence in your accusation might've in fact been warranted, especially given you're just a bystander?

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. This is total nonsense. The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent, but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > This is total nonsense. No it's not. > The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Yeah, and unless they depend on similarly licensed code that imposed restrictions on them (in which case someone should mention this to the maintainer in the beginning so he knows he has a legal obligation he's not fulfilling), it can be taken down and/or licensed differently moving forward however the contributors want to, without them owing you, me, or anybody else a notification or explanation. Even whom exactly that set of people is is not your business (nor mine). They may well not even want to divulge their relationships with each other to you, and they would have every right not to want to. You're neither a party to the matter, nor their lawyer, nor part of law enforcement, to try to seek justice on their behalf. If you're trying to be helpful, you can notify them privately and let them deal with it, or see if they want you to help. If they have a problem, they'll follow up. If they don't, that's the end of it. You can save your pitchfork for problems you're actually a party to. > Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent Or they could have not, because it's quite literally their business, and not your business to intervene (or mine). > but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite. No, this is what's complete nonsense. There are a heck of a lot of things I'm not OK with in this world, but I hold my peace on most of them and let those who are responsible deal with it. The fact that you don't see me trying to publicly crucify everyone who's ever lied to me does not mean I'm OK with people lying. It just means I don't think that every time someone does something wrong it is or should be my business to take justice in my own hands and get the rest of the world to publicly wreck them.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

> First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care. This is total nonsense. The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent, but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite.

mehrdadn 6y ago
> This is total nonsense. No it's not. > The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Yeah, and unless they depend on similarly licensed code that imposed restrictions on them (in which case someone should mention this to the maintainer in the beginning so he knows he has a legal obligation he's not fulfilling), it can be taken down and/or licensed differently moving forward however the contributors want to, without them owing you, me, or anybody else a notification or explanation. Even whom exactly that set of people is is not your business (nor mine). They may well not even want to divulge their relationships with each other to you, and they would have every right not to want to. You're neither a party to the matter, nor their lawyer, nor part of law enforcement, to try to seek justice on their behalf. If you're trying to be helpful, you can notify them privately and let them deal with it, or see if they want you to help. If they have a problem, they'll follow up. If they don't, that's the end of it. You can save your pitchfork for problems you're actually a party to. > Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent Or they could have not, because it's quite literally their business, and not your business to intervene (or mine). > but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite. No, this is what's complete nonsense. There are a heck of a lot of things I'm not OK with in this world, but I hold my peace on most of them and let those who are responsible deal with it. The fact that you don't see me trying to publicly crucify everyone who's ever lied to me does not mean I'm OK with people lying. It just means I don't think that every time someone does something wrong it is or should be my business to take justice in my own hands and get the rest of the world to publicly wreck them.