11 ms·

Bit premature to post this, especially without some manifesto explaining the particular reason for this fork. The "no rugpulls" implies something happened with

Bit premature to post this, especially without some manifesto explaining the particular reason for this fork. The "no rugpulls" implies something happened with Zed, but you can't really expect every HN reader to be in the loop with the open source controversy of the week.

decentrality 1y ago
Seems like it might be reacting to or fanned to flame by: https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/discussions/36604 https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/discussions/36604
- Squarex 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - barbazoo 1y ago
    > Are they really boycotting jews now? Just because they're boycotting someone who happens to be Jewish doesn't necessarily mean they're boycotting them because of it. > Zed just announced that they are taking money from Sequoia Capital, which has a partner, Shaun Maguire, who has recently been publicly and unapologetically Islamophobic. It seems hard to believe that the team didn't know about this, as it was covered in the New York Times. In addition, Maguire has been actively pro-occupation and genocide in Palestine for nearly 2 years. > How can anyone feel like the Code of Conduct means anything at all, when Sequoia is an investor? I'm shocked and surprised at the Zed team for this - I expected much better. Reads like it has more to do with what they said and done in the past which seems reasonable.
    - nicce 1y ago
      Sounds like the timer is on. Right when Zed started to be really good.
    - xdennis 1y ago
      [flagged]
- 201984 1y ago
  No, this fork is at least 6 months old. The first PR is dated February 13th.
  - decentrality 1y ago
    This is correct. The fork and the pitchforks are not causally related
- FergusArgyll 1y ago
  That's not a rug pull, that's a few overly sensitive young 'uns complaining
  - MeetingsBrowser 1y ago
    overly sensitive to what?
    - bigstrat2003 1y ago
      "You're doing business with someone whose views I dislike" is not harassment, nor do I believe that the person who opened the issue is arguing in good faith. The world is full of people with whom I disagree (often strongly) on matters of core values, and I work with them civilly because that is what a mature person does. Unless the VC firm starts pushing Zed to insert anti-Muslim propaganda into their product, or harassing the community, there is no reasonable grounds to complain about the CoC.
      - MeetingsBrowser 1y ago
        I don't agree that it is immature or overly sensitive. The issue basically says: > Hey, you look to be doing business with someone who publicly advocates for harming others. Could you explain why and to what extend they are involved? "doing business with someone whose views I dislike" is slightly downplaying the specific view here.
        samdoesnothing 1y ago
        Yet they post this on Github, which apparently isn't a problem for themselves or the code of conduct despite Microsoft having ties with the Israeli military.
        zahlman 1y ago
        >The issue basically says: I don't think any of the evidence shown there demonstrates "advocacy for harming others". The narrative on the surely-unbiased-and-objective "genocide.vc" site used as a source there simply isn't supported by the Twitter screencaps it offers. This also isn't at all politely asking "Could you explain why and to what extend they are involved?" It is explicitly stating that the evidenced level of involvement (i.e.: being a business partner of a company funding the project) is already (in the OP's opinion) beyond the pale. Furthermore, a rhetorical question is used to imply that this somehow deprives the Code of Conduct of meaning. Which is absurd, because the project Code of Conduct doesn't even apply to Sequoia Capital, never mind to Shaun Maguire.
marcosdumay 1y ago
They got a VC investment. But a fork with focus on privacy and local-first only needs lack of those to justify itself. It will have to cut some features that zed is really proud of, so it's hard to even say this is a rugpull.
- m463 1y ago
  Today we're announcing our $32M Series B led by Sequoia Capital with participation from our existing investors, bringing our total funding to over $42M. - zed.dev
- yencabulator 1y ago
  > It will have to cut some features that zed is really proud of What, they're proud of the telemetery? The fork claims to make everything opt-in and to not default to any specific vendor, and only to remove things that cannot be self-hosted. What proprietary features have to be cut that Zed people are really proud of? https://github.com/zedless-editor/zedless?tab=readme-ov-file#planned-changes-from-upstream https://github.com/zedless-editor/zedless?tab=readme-ov-file... As far as I know, the Zed people have open sourced their collab server components (as AGPLv3), at least well enough to self-host. For example, https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/docs/src/development/local-collaboration.md https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/docs/src/dev... -- AFAIK it's just https://github.com/livekit/livekit https://github.com/livekit/livekit The AI stuff will happily talk to self-hosted models, or OpenAI API lookalikes.
eikenberry 1y ago
Contributor Agreements are specifically there for license rug-pulls, so they can change the license in the future as they own all the copyrights. So the fact that they have a CA means they are prepping for a rug-pull and thus this bullet point.
- jen20 1y ago
  Are you suggesting the FSF has a copyright assignment for the purposes of “rug pulls”?
  - ilc 1y ago
    Yes. The FSF requires assignment so they can re-license the code to whatever new license THEY deem best. Not the contributors. A CLA should always be a warning.
    - craftkiller 1y ago
      IANAL but their official reason for the CLA seems pretty reasonable to me: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html tl;dr: If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder. (personally I don't release anything under virus licenses like the GPL but I don't think there's a nefarious purpose behind their CLA)
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder. This seems to be factually untrue; you can assign specific rights under copyright (such as your right to sue and receive compensation for violations by third parties) without assigning the underlying copyright. Transfer of the power to relicense is not necessary for transfer of the power to sue.
        teddyh 1y ago
NoboruWataya 1y ago
Zed is quite well known to be heavily cloud- and AI-focused, it seems clear that's what's motivating this fork. It's not some new controversy, it's just the clearly signposted direction of the project that many don't like.
- aurareturn 1y ago
  I remember it started out as a native app editor that is all about speed. I think it only started focusing on AI after LLMs blew up.
  - setopt 1y ago
    It focused on cloud / collab from the beginning though.

decentrality 1y ago

Seems like it might be reacting to or fanned to flame by: https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/discussions/36604 https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/discussions/36604

Squarex 1y ago
[flagged]
- barbazoo 1y ago
  > Are they really boycotting jews now? Just because they're boycotting someone who happens to be Jewish doesn't necessarily mean they're boycotting them because of it. > Zed just announced that they are taking money from Sequoia Capital, which has a partner, Shaun Maguire, who has recently been publicly and unapologetically Islamophobic. It seems hard to believe that the team didn't know about this, as it was covered in the New York Times. In addition, Maguire has been actively pro-occupation and genocide in Palestine for nearly 2 years. > How can anyone feel like the Code of Conduct means anything at all, when Sequoia is an investor? I'm shocked and surprised at the Zed team for this - I expected much better. Reads like it has more to do with what they said and done in the past which seems reasonable.
  - nicce 1y ago
    Sounds like the timer is on. Right when Zed started to be really good.
  - xdennis 1y ago
    [flagged]
201984 1y ago
No, this fork is at least 6 months old. The first PR is dated February 13th.
- decentrality 1y ago
  This is correct. The fork and the pitchforks are not causally related
FergusArgyll 1y ago
That's not a rug pull, that's a few overly sensitive young 'uns complaining
- MeetingsBrowser 1y ago
  overly sensitive to what?
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    "You're doing business with someone whose views I dislike" is not harassment, nor do I believe that the person who opened the issue is arguing in good faith. The world is full of people with whom I disagree (often strongly) on matters of core values, and I work with them civilly because that is what a mature person does. Unless the VC firm starts pushing Zed to insert anti-Muslim propaganda into their product, or harassing the community, there is no reasonable grounds to complain about the CoC.
    - MeetingsBrowser 1y ago
      I don't agree that it is immature or overly sensitive. The issue basically says: > Hey, you look to be doing business with someone who publicly advocates for harming others. Could you explain why and to what extend they are involved? "doing business with someone whose views I dislike" is slightly downplaying the specific view here.
      - samdoesnothing 1y ago
        Yet they post this on Github, which apparently isn't a problem for themselves or the code of conduct despite Microsoft having ties with the Israeli military.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        >The issue basically says: I don't think any of the evidence shown there demonstrates "advocacy for harming others". The narrative on the surely-unbiased-and-objective "genocide.vc" site used as a source there simply isn't supported by the Twitter screencaps it offers. This also isn't at all politely asking "Could you explain why and to what extend they are involved?" It is explicitly stating that the evidenced level of involvement (i.e.: being a business partner of a company funding the project) is already (in the OP's opinion) beyond the pale. Furthermore, a rhetorical question is used to imply that this somehow deprives the Code of Conduct of meaning. Which is absurd, because the project Code of Conduct doesn't even apply to Sequoia Capital, never mind to Shaun Maguire.

marcosdumay 1y ago

They got a VC investment. But a fork with focus on privacy and local-first only needs lack of those to justify itself. It will have to cut some features that zed is really proud of, so it's hard to even say this is a rugpull.

m463 1y ago
Today we're announcing our $32M Series B led by Sequoia Capital with participation from our existing investors, bringing our total funding to over $42M. - zed.dev
yencabulator 1y ago
> It will have to cut some features that zed is really proud of What, they're proud of the telemetery? The fork claims to make everything opt-in and to not default to any specific vendor, and only to remove things that cannot be self-hosted. What proprietary features have to be cut that Zed people are really proud of? https://github.com/zedless-editor/zedless?tab=readme-ov-file#planned-changes-from-upstream https://github.com/zedless-editor/zedless?tab=readme-ov-file... As far as I know, the Zed people have open sourced their collab server components (as AGPLv3), at least well enough to self-host. For example, https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/docs/src/development/local-collaboration.md https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/docs/src/dev... -- AFAIK it's just https://github.com/livekit/livekit https://github.com/livekit/livekit The AI stuff will happily talk to self-hosted models, or OpenAI API lookalikes.

eikenberry 1y ago

Contributor Agreements are specifically there for license rug-pulls, so they can change the license in the future as they own all the copyrights. So the fact that they have a CA means they are prepping for a rug-pull and thus this bullet point.

jen20 1y ago
Are you suggesting the FSF has a copyright assignment for the purposes of “rug pulls”?
- ilc 1y ago
  Yes. The FSF requires assignment so they can re-license the code to whatever new license THEY deem best. Not the contributors. A CLA should always be a warning.
  - craftkiller 1y ago
    IANAL but their official reason for the CLA seems pretty reasonable to me: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html tl;dr: If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder. (personally I don't release anything under virus licenses like the GPL but I don't think there's a nefarious purpose behind their CLA)
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > If someone violates the GPL, the FSF can't sue them on your behalf unless they are a copyright holder. This seems to be factually untrue; you can assign specific rights under copyright (such as your right to sue and receive compensation for violations by third parties) without assigning the underlying copyright. Transfer of the power to relicense is not necessary for transfer of the power to sue.
      - teddyh 1y ago

NoboruWataya 1y ago

Zed is quite well known to be heavily cloud- and AI-focused, it seems clear that's what's motivating this fork. It's not some new controversy, it's just the clearly signposted direction of the project that many don't like.

aurareturn 1y ago
I remember it started out as a native app editor that is all about speed. I think it only started focusing on AI after LLMs blew up.
- setopt 1y ago
  It focused on cloud / collab from the beginning though.