Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mirzap's commentslogin

It's not entitlement, it's the entire purpose of OSS. You are free to modify, distribute, and profit from other people's code. If you can't do any of these things, then the project is NOT OSS. Simple as that.

Entitlement is when you expect that OSS contributors must provide you with a warranty or a certain feature you need for your business activity. They are not.


Nowhere in the license does it claim that it’s an Open Source™ license.

The page summarises the license as “Basically… the MIT do-whatever-you-want license”. The MIT license is of course one of the most popular permissive open source licenses.

This is an incredibly misleading comparison. The subsequent clause is a complete contradiction, not a subtle clarification.


People who use it claim it's Open Source

They are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.

Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".

The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.

Yes, I agree that "source available" is an accurate description. Unlike "Open Source" licenses, which have no restrictions, "O'saasy" does not allow you to do "anything" you want. Adding a clause like "but you can't compete with us" makes it incompatible with OSS licenses.

I am fine with licensing your code as you wish, but I will always oppose attempts to redefine the widely understood and established meaning of "open source" that has been in place for over 30 years. You don't get to change its definition.


The “established” meaning has in fact been deliberately created by megacarporations like Microsoft so they can exploit free labor by volunteers to make money without lifting a finger. Look at who is sponsoring the OSI.

They already have, significantly, around 25-35% in developed economies. The issue is that people often look at revenue, seeing company X earning $100 billion annually, and assume they should pay $20 billion in taxes. However, most AI companies today are not profitable and spend up to 100% more than their revenue on R&D and product development. I doubt they will turn a profit anytime soon, probably not for at least a decade.

Actually it's much less, big corps are using any possibile schema to avoid paying taxes.

Effective corporate tax rates were between 12 and 14% for the US, with some of the biggest corporations bordering 0%.

> They already have, significantly, around 25-35% in developed economies

The thing is companies and even self-employed individuals of a certain wealth level know how to "(ab)use" it. From illegal but trivial and hard to detect tax evasion to financing personal lifestyle by having the company pay for certain luxuries (cars, computers, furniture, etc.).

If you have the wealth to have a dedicated office that dedicated office can be your man cave if you justify it with having all sorts of amenities for customers. And good luck to whoever checks taxes to find out how exactly things are used/not used.

All of that usually means that companies, company owners and high ranking managers get away with not paying taxes for a lot of things that everyone else does simply because they don't have a say within these companies.

And all of that is before you go to the tax advisor.

I am sorry, but if you do hard honest work the chances of you getting rich are beyond slim. Even worse when you do something that actually benefits society.


Apple needs to be broken up and separated from the App Store. Apple sells devices, and I buy one expecting to own it outright. When you own something, you should be able to install whatever you want without interference from Apple.

How is the iPhone different from the Macs? I can install anything I want from any source on the Mac, but I can't do that on the iPhone. Doesn't make any sense.


Even with a non-free package, simply add the repository and you're ready to install it.

There are multiple models:

1. Like Sentry - open source all the features, provide the cloud (hosted) version. Most businesses don't want to self-host, but want a bit cheaper alternative

2. Paid tier, buy once - own forever with 1 year update support. Later you can charge lower price to extend the update cycle.

3. Blender model - donations. Very hard to get it right.

4. Laravel/Next.js model - Open source the tooling, monetize the platform


Sentry isn't open source, it's source available.


I don't find commit messages useful for historical reasons (git log), I squash them anyway when merging PR. Commit messages are very helpful to a reviewer to get a necessary context and intent behind the change. Without it, I need to figure out it my self when reviewing. It is very easy to get a habit of committing often and in AI era i don't write commits anymore. So there is no excuse.


Not even 1%


This post could easily be generated by AI, no way to tell for sure. I'm more insulted if the title or blog thumbnail is misleading, or if the post is full of obvious nonsense, etc.

If a post contains valuable information that I learn from it, I don't really care if AI wrote it or not. AI is just a tool, like any other tool humans invented.

I'm pretty sure people had the same reaction 50 years ago, when the first PCs started appearing: "It's insulting to see your calculations made by personal electronic devices."


The real issue isn’t Apple’s commission, it’s the lack of choice. Allowing app installations outside the App Store, as on macOS, would immediately subject Apple’s pricing to market pressure. The fee would drop on its own, without regulation.

Macs have allowed apps from "untrusted" sources for decades - and they’re doing just fine. So no, this isn’t about security. It’s about control and monopoly.


Exactly this. There is no way not to choose the App Store, regardless of the price. Apple goes further by making users believe alternatives are "less secure" and what not (which is not true) so it's not just about distribution, it's also a battle of perception. Even if Apple's App Store tax is 0.00, it would still be unfair and have negative impact on consumers due to the limited choice of apps and experiences they can get.


> making users believe alternatives are "less secure"

Meanwhile searching on Apple's App Store gives you unrelated crypto scam app as first hit. Apple looks so off-brand these days.


Yeah, but the hubris of American MAGA nationalists doesn’t allow them to see it that way. They’re convinced the world can’t function without them, that everyone needs them.

Anyone with a shred of sense can see where this is heading: the inevitable collapse of the American empire and the end of its unparalleled global dominance. At this point, it’s unavoidable. The U.S. has alienated nearly every ally it once had. Ironically, Trump might be the one who saves Europe in the long run.


>Ironically, Trump might be the one who saves Europe in the long run.

Except that the political class in EU is almost unanimous in following behind US and begging US for approval.


Yes, old habits die hard, but it is slowly changing.


One may smile while sharpening a knife.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: