Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by micromacrofoot 207 days ago
So Rebble wants to benefit from code they didn't write (Pebble apps)... but also wants to prevent Pebble from benefiting from code Pebble didn't write (Rebble updates to Pebble apps)?

This seems a little silly, no? rent seeking behavior for maintaining code they didn't write to begin with?
1 comments
Avamander 207 days ago
The fact that Core is not willing to just start from the old dump publicly available already shows that it's not just "rent-seeking". Core clearly wants what Rebble has spent significant effort in not just maintaining but also building.

They're entitled to it just because in some sense Core is a successor to Pebble? No, not really.

link
micromacrofoot 206 days ago
Of course it's rent-seeking, akin to squatting — Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost. In some cases they might actually be required by the licenses of individual apps to open source their maintenance.

No one's actually entitled to anything here on either end (legally), I see 0 work being done to actually contact the original authors to seek permission or licensing details.

AFAIK, there wasn't a blanket license that covered all apps in the ecosystem... so each app would vary. In the absence of a license all rights are held by the original developers.

link
Avamander 206 days ago
> Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost.

Again, if that's all it were, Core could and should just take that old Pebble dump and use that. Why bother Rebble if they haven't done anything as you imply.

link