Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kristoff_it 2108 days ago
As the author of the statement, I disagree. Parent poster got it right: the license is MIT precisely to allow the highest degree of freedom.

Companies that want to profit from Zig are welcome to do so, but in this particular case, we consider connectFree a bad actor and so we crossed the language barrier to make sure Japanese developers would be able to hear from both sides.
1 comments
CyberRabbi 2108 days ago
From the statement:

    “We can’t in good conscience recommend to Japanese professionals and businesses to make their livelihood depend on a closed-source, superficial rebranding of Zig“
Does the zig foundation have a problem with recommending closed-source superficial rebrandings of Zig or just from connectFree?
link
judofyr 2108 days ago
Regardless of the legality of a thing, the foundation might of course recommend against using it. Imagine that someone wrote a shitty book (without stealing any content) which ends up as the only result on Amazon. It’s perfectly legal to release such a book and it would be sensible for the foundation to warn the Zig community about the lacking quality.

Just because the license allows anyone to fork it and sell it doesn’t mean that Zig is obliged to endorse it.

link
CyberRabbi 2108 days ago
It’s fine for the foundation to recommend against certain companies, but it’s inconsistent to recommend against any specific company on the basis of it being “closed source superficial rebrand” if they claim to have no issue with people using their code on those terms.
link
dnautics 2108 days ago
did you read the description of what happened?
link
CyberRabbi 2108 days ago
Yes
link
dnautics 2108 days ago
then I submit that your rhetorical question at the end of your statement is flawed. Maybe consider the question: Does zig have a problem with closed-source rebrandings by companies that cause serious damage to the ecosystem outside of merely forking the code?
link
CyberRabbi 2108 days ago
It was not flawed nor rhetorical, if their concern is with ecosystem damage, then the fact that the company makes a closed source superficial rebrand should have no bearing on that. Unless they indeed have a problem with companies profiting from Zig.
link