← Back to context

Comment by soraminazuki

3 months ago

That's not how consent works. GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible.

15 comments

soraminazuki

Reply
naikrovek  3 months ago

> GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible.

It still is "open to all", but you can't abuse the service and expect to retain the ability to abuse the service.

Also where is "silently" coming from? This whole HN page is because someone linked to an article announcing the change...

I'm not really a fan of Microsoft anymore, but some of you have (apparently long ago) turned the corner into "anything Microsoft does that I don't want Microsoft to do is clearly Microsoft being evil" and that is simply not a reality-based viewpoint. sometimes Microsoft is doing something which one could consider "evil", but without knowledge that something evil is happening, you're assuming that evil is happening, and that's not really a valid way to think about things if you want to be heard by anyone.

  • soraminazuki  3 months ago

    I repeat, this didn't start today. It has been happening for years. And no, browsing a few files or searching for an issue or two, which they totally kick in the rate limit for, isn't "abuse."

    • naikrovek  3 months ago

      They don’t rate limit someone who is browsing with a normal usage pattern. They did for a day or two, then discovered their mistake and fixed it.

      > years

      No.

      > a few

      I’ve always considered “a few” to be “between 3 and 12” and 60 is more than “a few”.

      4 replies →

brookst  3 months ago

Are all contributors to open source under a lifetime obligation to never change their level of investment?

Kind of a rhetorical question I guess, for a while I maintained a small open source project and yes, I still get entitled “why did you even publish this if you’re not going to fix the bug I reported” comments. Like, sorry, but my life priorities changed over the intervening 15 years. Fork it and fix it.

  • soraminazuki  3 months ago

    Microsoft didn't just give, they're benefitting massively from open source. And they're looking to extract even more value through data mining from forced logins and stealing GPL licensed code by laundering it using AI. There's no room for sympathy here.

    • brookst  3 months ago

      There’s no sympathy in business. It’s a straw man to claim I’m looking for some emotional response.

      But there is obligation. I’m asking if contributing to open source creates an obligation to do so forever, either for individuals or companies.

  • jnky  3 months ago

    All contributors to open source are not created equal. It is different when a literal 3 trillion dollar company does it, thus demonstrating they were unworthy of the trust and goodwill put in them. They have the money, they have the cloud infrastructure, they are doing all kinds of scraping themselves.

arkh  3 months ago

Who could have known that Microsoft would pull some shenanigans?

Is 20 years too long ago to learn from then?

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. This has never gone away.