TAForObvReasons

This seems to ignore the first part of the story, where Hashicorp builds up a community around an open source project and relicenses the project. OpenTofu and now OpenBao wouldn't have happened if Hashicorp didn't relicense in the first place.

Creators with decent-sized portfolios will just train their own models.

> He told me the training process took about 2.5 hours on a GPU at Vast.ai, and cost less than $2.

This is a SaaS waiting to happen.

https://waxy.org/2022/11/invasive-diffusion-how-one-unwillin... This was on the front page last year.

Valve's 2 hour refund option came in direct response to a 2014 lawsuit from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission[1].

Rod Sims, head of ACCC at the time, asserted that Valve's original no-refund stance broke Australian law.

> Under Australian Consumer Law, everybody who buys a product or a service has a right to a refund if the product doesn’t work. They have a right to a refund, or a repair. Those rights are enshrined in Australian Law, and our allegation is that Valve sought to remove those consumer rights which is a breach of Australian Consumer Law

[1] https://gizmodo.com.au/2014/08/accc-commissioner-heres-why-w...

Is it any more shortsighted than using the "open tools" in the first place? There will be integration costs and maintenance of integration with open tools. You may not be able to pay anyone for support issues because those people may not provide the sort of customer support you expect when you pay someone.

It’s not sudden and it’s not limited to python libraries.

The popular open source projects make great targets for low-multiple acqui-hires, derisking the investment. They also have huge established branding and generally obvious opportunities for displacing existing players. In a non-zero interest rate environment, those factors make established open source projects a more appealing bet.

Since they mentioned the company, undercutting and eating the market share of DataBricks is enough to appeal to some investors.

> You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

You are intentionally misrepresenting OP.

> When will VC companies stop *conflating source available with open source*?

*Misrepresenting* "open source" is the problem. "source available" is the correct phrase

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Discord video calls also beat the pants off Teams, Zoom, and Meet.

The author of Zod had an insightful comment on FOSS and monetization https://twitter.com/colinhacks/status/1422222156340072456

> whether an OSS project lends itself to monetization is a really interesting and subtle question. rule of thumb, be at least two of these: big, boring (roughly correlates with "infrastructural" as @patio11 puts it), and lacking obvious substitutes

The monetization strategy is only a part of the viability story.

This is still happening today. There are multiple VC groups trawling through GitHub trending and star lists to find potential investment targets.

The Shopify acquisition of Remix (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33405997) established the viability of this investment strategy.

When projects vendor or copy from other projects, license bodies typically include all relevant copyright statements and licenses even if the license body is the same as the parent project.

NodeJS uses the MIT license [1] and reproduces the license for the MIT-licensed Acorn.

OP stripped the copyright statement and license attribution without mentioning hlky or the originating project in the license file. OP proceeded to confuse matters by assuming that "AGPL" suffices. It seems like the copyright statement was the offense here.

A simple email or github issue might have resolved the matter. Given the tenor of the relationship between the OP and hlky it should be no surprise that hlky opted for the "nuclear option"

[1] https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/LICENSE

Does it matter if "the guy is doing proper crypto" if he is getting paid by "pyramid scheme money"? Arguably it is worse since his presence is ostensibly legitimizing the "pyramid schemes". It feels like the techie version of celebrity endorsement

It's not unreasonable for the US federal government to ban employees of the US federal government from using Australian banking apps on work devices issued by the US federal government.

It is a separate conversation if any of those variables change.

It is not unreasonable for governments to require all apps be published by US companies

If you walk the logic to its conclusion, you might be better off taking the ToS ban:

"received wrong item but didn't fight" -> "concern that future orders may be wrong" -> "use amazon less or for smaller items" -> "prime is not worth it" -> "leave"

The difference between that and the chargeback, at first blush, is that you at least get your money back on the item if you chargeback.

Repairability and general hackability are core design goals of the Steam Deck compared to other devices. On the software side, they don't hide the desktop Linux core.

It's the VC-funded OSS playbook (restrictive open source, monetize support and advanced deployments until the open source loses potency, relicense). Cal.com took money from https://oss.capital/portfolio and others

Bootstrapped small businesses can have the same scaling potential as startups. They just value sustainable growth over business fragility. It seems foolish during summers but that mentality allows bootstrapped businesses to survive winters in a way that startups can't.

Hosting is the obvious answer. Deno is monetizing in the same exact way (https://deno.com/deploy/pricing) and they managed to raise much more money with the same playbook.

The key phrase is "in a downturn". When it is not a downturn, VCs encourage startups to grow at all costs. And it's extremely difficult to change course. VCs can change advice overnight but companies don't have that flexibility

Not an accountant. 3 years is shorter than the expected 5-year depreciation [1], so if you took a section 179 deduction you may have to pay some of it back. It may actually be worse to trade in than to let the machine sit for a few years.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946#en_US_2020_publink1000...

Not an accountant.

If everyone involved is a US citizen, this year's gift tax exemption is $17000 per recipient. That means you can give up to $34K written as $17K checks to each parent with no fuss.

You may write something that you publicly stand by today but not 20 years from now. You can't go back and erase what you wrote. At least with an opaque username there is an element of plausible deniability

Stripe charges for protection https://stripe.com/radar/pricing

> Chargeback Protection

> Defend your business from the unpredictability of disputes. With Chargeback Protection, Stripe will cover both the disputed amount and any dispute fees—no evidence submission required. Chargeback Protection costs just 0.4% per transaction.

Suppose you wanted to leave. There are 2 choices:

A) Voluntarily leave and get some sort of severance.

B) Wait and gamble that the company decides to ask you to leave.

If you wait and are not selected to leave, you likely won't get any severance. So if you are angling to leave, it's safer to just take the package.

"winter" implies there's a forthcoming "spring". Parent is suggesting the possibility of a permanent impairment, that crypto may never "recover" to public interest and price levels seen in the last few years.

This same sort of rescinding happened in 2008 to college grads joining bulge brackets.

It is absolutely possible for both to be true. Businesses want knowledge workers who are competent and can address problems but also willing to accept the compensation they are offering. Knowledge workers want to be compensated fairly without knowing whether they can address the actual problems they are being hired to solve. This situation of information asymmetry is referred to as a "market for lemons"

GitHub built goodwill over the years. There were many controversies, but there were also many die-hard fans. That didn't evaporate overnight. Microsoft bought GitHub (and minted 3 billionaires in the process) specifically to acquire that goodwill and monetize it.