akerl_

What makes you say that?

Some people might suggest it’s crucial to publish if you’re aware of a serious vulnerability, so that people using the software in a vulnerable way can take steps to mitigate the risk.

Archive.ph returns different results to Cloudflare’s resolvers intentionally, preventing Cloudflare DNS users from resolving it correctly.

They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.

Maybe this should be a lesson about the dangers of rolling in hot with a bunch of insults?

I think we’ll have to let this comment tree rot.

Oh, you asked me if I disagreed with your point about gardens.

That one is pretty obvious because community gardens that want to enforce a floor on amount of maintenance include that in rules that you have to agree to before they give you some of their space.

I checked the whole terms of service for GitHub and they don’t have anything about how much work I have to do on a repo once I publish it for it to stay mine.

If you’re asking me which of those statements I disagree with, 1 and 3.

Yes.

If I have a garden in my yard and I say “I am the gardener of this garden”, what commitment have I made to you, a third party who just happened to be within earshot, about how much time I will spend working on the garden?

Can you cite the case law about an open source project having a reliance interest?

If you're asking me, I'm not the one who said this was what soft delete was for.

Does writing a kernel need to be justified?

Is it?

Soft delete is really only a viable option if you're the provider. If you're Patreon and you get a court order with your name on it mandating that you take some content offline but preserve it for the legal proceedings, you soft delete it and you're all set.

But if you're a user of Patreon, you can't know for sure that if you hit the delete button, it's actually a soft delete on Patreon's end, or how long it will stay soft before it actually gets permanently deleted. You also don't generally have a way to access it down the road other than reaching out to the vendor's support staff.

You've only had an account for under an hour, and 20 of it was spent crafting your post?

I'd expect the intent is to help cut down on some of the wave of drive by Show HN posts by requiring folks engage with the site for a bit first and get a feel for the expectations.

Somebody appears to be cataloging the documents, including the TRO, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/comments/1tqrdei/compla...

The TRO applies to "co-Defendants (including DOES 1-15), their affiliates, co-conspirators, employees, contractors, agents and representatives, and anyone acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, in person, remotely or online".

It includes several items, most of them about doxxing or threats, going to the store.

One thing that intrigues me is items I and K:

I: Destroying, deleting, altering or failing to preserve videos, raw footage, outtakes, communications, texts, emails, Discord/Patreon posts, YouTube comments, analytics, phone records, call logs, police communications and documents relating to Bricks & Minifigs, the LEGO collection dispute, threats and the creation/promotion of the videos;

K: Maintaining the current Publications (as such term is defined in the Verified Complaint) and any other video, audio or other form of publication posted on any online streaming platform by Co-Defendants, directly or indirectly, and requiring that the Publications and any such other communications published by co- Defendants be immediately removed and/or taken down from any online streaming platform or otherwise published that in any way relate to the private legal dispute underlying this matter between Bryan and Chrystal and the assertions of wrongdoing as described in this Verified Complaint.

So they have to preserve the content but also must remove it.

I suspect Patreon's lawyers' stance is that the TRO does not apply to them (they're not acting in concert with the defendant, they're just running their service), and that item K instructs the defendants to remove the content, it doesn't require Patreon to remove it. So the remedy would be for the plantiff to go back to court and say "the plantiffs didn't take the content down" and either have the judge enforce some further penalty or issue an order specifically instructing Patreon to remove the content.

How many people have to star your repo before it's no longer yours?

Woof. I think we’re just not going to agree.

Sorry, but working on projects that interest you and going online to tell somebody they fucked up are not equivalent social behaviors.

Again, this is not work and they are not customers.

This is somebody spending their free time on code they enjoy and then putting the result online.

The reason businesses are careful about which customers they fire is because they want to keep having customers. Open source maintainers have no reason to deal with that shit.

Sure. But an open source project is not a professional setting.

I think you may be confusing popularity with existence.

The thing that makes a project die is if the maintainers all leave. Users don’t make a project exist. They make it popular.

If the user community all up and left, rsync would still exist and continue as long as its maintainers choose to work on it.

By contrast, if all the maintainers leave because they’re tired of dealing with assholes, the project dies.

This is not a professional setting. This is an open source project that somebody published to the internet. Using it does not make you a customer, and it doesn’t matter if it “struck a nerve” with users.

This doesn’t seem related to my comment. Did you mean to reply to me upthread?

Saying ~“maybe it’s not ok to do <thing> but <reasons they might do thing>” is nothing like your example and does imply it’s acceptable to the speaker to sometimes do that thing.

But we’re past that now because the person I was discussing this with has gone ahead and clarified that telling an open source maintainer to please stop fucking up isn’t an angry comment.

There’s so much to unpack here, but let’s say I grant your premises that AIs are equivalent to people and Claude is making its own decisions about the project and the OG maintainer has ceded control of the repo to Mr Claude.

I don’t, but let’s assume for a moment.

It’s still up to the current maintainer to pick additional or replacement maintainers, and it would be bonkers to expect the new maintainer to fork the repo to implement their changes.

Open source projects change their maintainers all the time.

If I were the rsync maintainer I’d probably set the repo to only allow issues and PRs from prior contributors until people learn to behave.

That’s exactly what I was calling out.

Customers pay money for goods and services. They thus get a bunch of social, ethical, and legal positions in terms of their relationship with the seller.

Rsync is an open source project that its maintainers put onto the Internet. People who use it are not customers, and they do not have the right to expectations around how the maintainers will change the software or change how they develop it.

The target of the issue title is pretty clearly the maintainer. They’re the one being told to stop using AI.

I guess this answers the question of whether you think maybe it’s ok to spit in the face of open source developers.

The title of the original issue, by the original issue submitter, is “Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software”.

Do you believe the comments in this GitHub issue are acceptable social discourse towards an open source maintainer?

These are not customers.