4 ms·
Describing this as "comically awful" seems strange. In terms of building a good open source project, they did a bad job. However they did a good job making the
by lukeschlather 2y ago
Describing this as "comically awful" seems strange. In terms of building a good open source project, they did a bad job. However they did a good job making the source available. Also given all the dependencies they may have (whether intentionally or not) followed the best path to make sure that the source would be useful. They ended up looking bad and exposing themselves to legal trouble, but I'm not sure this was awful, and they might even have known exactly what they were doing.
- tiahura 2y ago[flagged]
- johnnyanmac 2y agoDo people really not understand how bad this could be from a legal perspective. Licenses are a contract and they broke several contracts. >They ended up looking bad and exposing themselves to legal trouble, but I'm not sure this was awful For a company, I can't think of anything less awful than purposefully choosing to expose oneself to legal trouble. I'd say that qualifies as "comically awful". >they might even have known exactly what they were doing. In what way? Are they going bankrupt (so nothing to sue for) and just want to send out readable source on the way out, without enough care to strip out copyright and list dependencies? That's certainly a hail Mary, but I think that move does more damage to the community than goodwill.