[Aurornis]

Absolutely. That’s why they’re open source.

But it’s a common courtesy to credit the foundations you build upon when they’re doing the heavy lifting for an app.

If you look at the Airstream repo, you’ll see that it prominently credits the underlying library that it uses for a lot of the AirPlay foundational work.

[pvg]

These threads are really about discussing the work and less about policing projects' formatting, names, credits, etc. It's just way, way, way less interesting.

[Aurornis]

> These threads are really about discussing the work

That’s what I was trying to do. I opened up the code, started reading, and realized it wasn’t really what I thought it was.

I’m not trying to “police” arbitrary things, I’m trying to explain what the project is.

There’s been a recent trend of “Show HN” projects taking credit for other people’s work, like the “KVSplit” Show HN from several weeks ago that claimed credit for some upstream features in another project by wrapping it up in a separate repo and writing some LLM-generated claims.

[bri3d]

I think that name policing and “the whole project is really just a wrapper for another thing” are dramatically different points of discussion.

[pvg]

“Just a wrapper” is tropey drive-by grump, not a constructive critique. “Your face is just a wrapper” is as true and as boring.

[bri3d]

A link to the utilized library is not simply drive-by grump. I agree with a lot of complaints about non-substantive grouchiness on HN but I can’t be sold on this one.

[throwanem]

There is room for both. Of needless naysaying we could do with less, though.

[pvg]

There really isn't because the boring stuff is easy to harumph about and tends to eat up entire posts. E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44161021

Without massive moderator intervention that whole submission would have been buried in cruft. Better to not start cruftalanches to begin with.

[throwanem]

Well, fair enough, it'll take someone bolder than I to gainsay further in the face of that.