This is interesting because it’s also one of SQLite’s monetizations. SQLite is in the public domain, but you need a commercial license to access their TH3 test harness with 100% branch coverage used to validate SQLite on different platforms.
Well that's embarrassing! I reported it as if it wasn't a joke. I thought the joke issue was this one about translating everything to Chinese: https://github.com/tldraw/tldraw/issues/8092
If it was a joke (the test suite issue), then it was a really shit joke. It reads more like backtracking, I don't think _you_ should feel any embarrassment.
I'm thinking of migrating to ExcaliDraw or Xournal++ next time I need a whiteboard.
The performative closing of public contributions citing the slop scare felt disingenuous from the start. You couldn't be bothered to implement _any_ mitigations that leave the community engaged with the project?
Writing a contributor karma bot, moving to a non-social or obscure git forge (most slop contributors are resume farming and GitHub is the only forge the HR cares about), newbie-unfriendly non-public workflows like git send-mail, or references from Discord... This isn't an AGI on the other side of the screen, planning the perfect strategy to infiltrate your project; it's a sub-script-kiddie trying to fill a portfolio with quick "contributions" doing the more annoying version of "fixing typos" in docs.
This is concerning, it feels a bit tragedy-of-the-commons I suppose where having public tests are a valuable public good, thought I can't quite get the analogy straight in my head.
The headline should be changed, because it is moving from one closed source repo to another closed source repo, and on HN misleading headlines tend to be corrected even if they're deliberate on the part of the authors.
simonw correctly describes it as "not technically open source" - though OSI doesn't have the trademark, the term open source, capitalized or not, refers to the what the Open Source Definition codifies. There are other terms such as shared source, for this sort of stuff.
The headline should be changed because it was a joke: “Sorry folks, this issue was more of a joke (am I allowed to do that?) but I'll keep the issue open since there's some discussion here.”
"Sorry folks, this issue was more of a joke (am I allowed to do that?) but I'll keep the issue open since there's some discussion here."
Well that's embarrassing! I reported it as if it wasn't a joke. I thought the joke issue was this one about translating everything to Chinese: https://github.com/tldraw/tldraw/issues/8092
The performative closing of public contributions citing the slop scare felt disingenuous from the start. You couldn't be bothered to implement _any_ mitigations that leave the community engaged with the project?
Writing a contributor karma bot, moving to a non-social or obscure git forge (most slop contributors are resume farming and GitHub is the only forge the HR cares about), newbie-unfriendly non-public workflows like git send-mail, or references from Discord... This isn't an AGI on the other side of the screen, planning the perfect strategy to infiltrate your project; it's a sub-script-kiddie trying to fill a portfolio with quick "contributions" doing the more annoying version of "fixing typos" in docs.
simonw correctly describes it as "not technically open source" - though OSI doesn't have the trademark, the term open source, capitalized or not, refers to the what the Open Source Definition codifies. There are other terms such as shared source, for this sort of stuff.