5 ms·

I think it's more that bullshit is called when bullshit is seen.

whalesalad 2y ago
This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?
- azemetre 2y ago
  It's not hyperbolic. We're in a profession that elevates each other via open source. Saying something that is open source when it's not is no different than snake oil salesmen selling whiskey elixirs in the 1800s as cure alls. They are lying and need to be called out.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    Hard disagree. In the real world, the source of this app is open and therefore it is open source. You guys are behaving like extremists. Would you prefer nothing at all? Sounds like in this case everyone here is looking past the golden egg in front of you - a successful rails app you can explore and play with - and focusing entirely on the wrong thing.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      You're acting as if there aren't already tens of thousands of actual open source projects that exist just fine, some even make enough money to support continued development. Why are you acting like the alternative is to burn down the system, you realize that there are plenty of people, organizations, and businesses that make actual open source software right? Like today even.
- whateveracct 2y ago
  it's not open source - this is clearly "source available." these are terms of art. just because you can read the English literally and say "the source is open" doesn't mean you've proven anything.
- diggan 2y ago
  > Why is everyone in here with pitchforks? Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source, I probably wouldn't be a developer in the first place. Just call things what they are, and leave existing terminology alone. Defending "open source" is defending the opportunity for others who were in the same situation as myself in the past. Otherwise we'll quickly see more of what already started today, companies calling things "open source" in their marketing material but "proprietary" in their legal agreements, and no one will be better off if that's accepted.
  - jhanschoo 2y ago
    > Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source In this instance, where did Gumroad claim that its code was open source?
    - diggan 2y ago
      In this case it seems like the person who submitted it to HN just used an incorrect title, so not that bad in the grand scheme of things. My reply was more directed towards the "Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?" in a general sense, as it wouldn't have been the first time I read about someone not understanding why people who do "open source" would like the existing meaning to remain.

This is just so hyperbolic? It's code for a project you can explore and learn from. License is not permissive? It's a friggin rails app - just look at the model or mechanism you are interested in copying, figure out the approach taken, and recreate that approach. Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?

azemetre 2y ago
It's not hyperbolic. We're in a profession that elevates each other via open source. Saying something that is open source when it's not is no different than snake oil salesmen selling whiskey elixirs in the 1800s as cure alls. They are lying and need to be called out.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  Hard disagree. In the real world, the source of this app is open and therefore it is open source. You guys are behaving like extremists. Would you prefer nothing at all? Sounds like in this case everyone here is looking past the golden egg in front of you - a successful rails app you can explore and play with - and focusing entirely on the wrong thing.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    You're acting as if there aren't already tens of thousands of actual open source projects that exist just fine, some even make enough money to support continued development. Why are you acting like the alternative is to burn down the system, you realize that there are plenty of people, organizations, and businesses that make actual open source software right? Like today even.
whateveracct 2y ago
it's not open source - this is clearly "source available." these are terms of art. just because you can read the English literally and say "the source is open" doesn't mean you've proven anything.
diggan 2y ago
> Why is everyone in here with pitchforks? Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source, I probably wouldn't be a developer in the first place. Just call things what they are, and leave existing terminology alone. Defending "open source" is defending the opportunity for others who were in the same situation as myself in the past. Otherwise we'll quickly see more of what already started today, companies calling things "open source" in their marketing material but "proprietary" in their legal agreements, and no one will be better off if that's accepted.
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  > Personally, I get pissed when companies misuse "open source" because without open source In this instance, where did Gumroad claim that its code was open source?
  - diggan 2y ago
    In this case it seems like the person who submitted it to HN just used an incorrect title, so not that bad in the grand scheme of things. My reply was more directed towards the "Why is everyone in here with pitchforks?" in a general sense, as it wouldn't have been the first time I read about someone not understanding why people who do "open source" would like the existing meaning to remain.