3 ms·

What a joke of a license. This is not open source. Why the fuck is everyone in VC land trying to change the true definition of open source?

cjpearson 2y ago
For what it's worth Gumroad left VC land several years ago. https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tempfile 2y ago
The definition of open source is itself a corruption of free software which came before it, and was corrupted by the same people.
XCSme 2y ago
Most of the VC open-source projects use open-source as a lead magnet/marketing tactic only, with no intention or desire of wanting people to actually use the software.
- preisschild 2y ago
  Yep. Bait & Switch. Which is exactly why you shouldn't contribute to open source projects that require a CLA.
- diggan 2y ago
  There is a distinction between those companies who actually license their stuff under FOSS licenses, but use it to get more marketing/contributors/whatever, and what companies like Meta are doing today, which is calling something "open source" in their marketing material, but if you read the terms and conditions, they call it "proprietary" instead and comes with lots of restrictions that aren't compatible with FOSS. One is a marketing tactic, the other one is outright misleading.
openthc 2y ago
Which is super bullshit; cause now offering open source solutions many folk see it as a trick!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
graypegg 2y ago
The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright, but only as long as you meet all the conditions below. Am I going insane, or is there a reading of this that seems to imply you can use the software, to infringe on ANY work Gumroad has created? "...grants you a copyright license for the software" seems to imply it's talking about this software license only, but the second part mentions "licensor's copyright" which seems to not be defined, nor bounded. There's no mention of a copyright *for the software*... just the copyright license to use the software that allows you to infringe all copyrights from Gumroad. I think they probably meant The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright [to the software], but only as long as you meet all the conditions below. I wonder if you can just reuse text or images from their corporate website as long as you personally make less than 1M$ a year, use their software and don't infringe their trademarks. Awful license on multiple levels.
- DetroitThrow 2y ago
  No you're not insane, it's much harder to follow than most source available licenses I've seen.
jhanschoo 2y ago
I think this reaction is misdirected. Yes, the license is restrictive, but Gumroad doesn't seem to be claiming themselves that the code is open source. I think OP made a mistake out of ignorance and said that it was open source.
- rustc 2y ago
  The founder of Gumroad is claiming that [1]. > 14 years ago, Gumroad launched > Today, Gumroad goes open-source [1]: https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227 https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227
  - jhanschoo 2y ago
    Thanks, this is new to me and not something I could infer from OP's link.
    - accoil 2y ago
      I think the original title for this submission also called it open source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580533
      - jhanschoo 2y ago
        Yes indeed, but OP is not Gumroad.
pseudalopex 2y ago
> Why the fuck is everyone in VC land trying to change the true definition of open source? They want the marketing benefits without the costs.
michaelcampbell 2y ago
Money; the same reason everyone in VC land does anything.

cjpearson 2y ago

For what it's worth Gumroad left VC land several years ago. https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tempfile 2y ago

The definition of open source is itself a corruption of free software which came before it, and was corrupted by the same people.

XCSme 2y ago

Most of the VC open-source projects use open-source as a lead magnet/marketing tactic only, with no intention or desire of wanting people to actually use the software.

preisschild 2y ago
Yep. Bait & Switch. Which is exactly why you shouldn't contribute to open source projects that require a CLA.
diggan 2y ago
There is a distinction between those companies who actually license their stuff under FOSS licenses, but use it to get more marketing/contributors/whatever, and what companies like Meta are doing today, which is calling something "open source" in their marketing material, but if you read the terms and conditions, they call it "proprietary" instead and comes with lots of restrictions that aren't compatible with FOSS. One is a marketing tactic, the other one is outright misleading.

openthc 2y ago

Which is super bullshit; cause now offering open source solutions many folk see it as a trick!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

graypegg 2y ago

The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright, but only as long as you meet all the conditions below. Am I going insane, or is there a reading of this that seems to imply you can use the software, to infringe on ANY work Gumroad has created? "...grants you a copyright license for the software" seems to imply it's talking about this software license only, but the second part mentions "licensor's copyright" which seems to not be defined, nor bounded. There's no mention of a copyright *for the software*... just the copyright license to use the software that allows you to infringe all copyrights from Gumroad. I think they probably meant The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright [to the software], but only as long as you meet all the conditions below. I wonder if you can just reuse text or images from their corporate website as long as you personally make less than 1M$ a year, use their software and don't infringe their trademarks. Awful license on multiple levels.

DetroitThrow 2y ago
No you're not insane, it's much harder to follow than most source available licenses I've seen.

jhanschoo 2y ago

I think this reaction is misdirected. Yes, the license is restrictive, but Gumroad doesn't seem to be claiming themselves that the code is open source. I think OP made a mistake out of ignorance and said that it was open source.

rustc 2y ago
The founder of Gumroad is claiming that [1]. > 14 years ago, Gumroad launched > Today, Gumroad goes open-source [1]: https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227 https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  Thanks, this is new to me and not something I could infer from OP's link.
  - accoil 2y ago
    I think the original title for this submission also called it open source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580533
    - jhanschoo 2y ago
      Yes indeed, but OP is not Gumroad.

pseudalopex 2y ago

> Why the fuck is everyone in VC land trying to change the true definition of open source? They want the marketing benefits without the costs.

michaelcampbell 2y ago

Money; the same reason everyone in VC land does anything.