We all agree that crafting the right prompts (or however we call the CLAUDE.md instructions) is a lot of work, don't we? Of course they put work into this, it's a file of substantial size. And then Claude used it to build the thing. Where is a contradiction? I don't see the mental gymnastics, sorry.
I think they may be jumping on the "shit on AI assisted project" bandwagon. I am by no means reaching for ai tools at every turn, but to suggest its plagiarized is laughable.
I'm going to respond here assuming you are being genuine and not facetious or sarcastic (even though I am hoping you were).
"Source available" doesn't in any way mean "you can sue anyone that uses your code for any reason...". The irony of highlighting the trickery of these terms then you yourself perpetuating wrong definitions is... amusing.
"Source available" is by definition ill-defined, in the sense that "open source" is defined. There is no trademark, stewarding body, or legal entity behind "Source available". It only exists in relation to OSI defined "open source".
Which is to say, it is defined as code that does not fit the "Open Source Definition (OSD)" yet its source code is viewable. Maybe its modifiable, maybe its free to use, but maybe its neither. Thats all anyone can factually attribute to the definition of "Source available". Nothing about "suing ... for any reason".
Again, hoping you were making your comment in good fun, otherwise it doesn't look too good for you.
I edited it to be more specific while you were typing that.
The entire point of copyright is a legal mechanism to sue people. "Source-available" at a minimum is someone sharing their code under their own copyright and terms of use.
All code is shared "under someones own copyright and terms". Whether you use pre-existing words or not doesn't define if its open-source or source-available. I can write a license right now that I maintain the copyright, and written with my own terms that complies with the OSD. We happen to have a collection of existing licenses that have been vetted, but it isn't a exclusionary whitelist.
I'll reiterate, "source available" can only be defined as not OSD code that is viewable. Everything else is entirely open to implementation and interpretation.
This is the largest problem with the term. This is in stark contract to examples like "Fair Source" which has a legal definition like the OSD, and a entity behind it stewarding that definition [0], while being a subset of Source Available. All fair source is source available, not all source available is fair source.
Yet, fair source doesn't fall into your definition of source available.
Thats a fair (no pun) question! The reason "source available" exists is to starkly seperate it from "open source", yet to your point, they certainly can be both. However it is reductive/pointless to say my code is "open source and source available" since of course the source is available if its open source.
This highlights my knee-jerk reaction to your initial post. My original definition I provided for Source Available was "[viewable but not OSD]". This is overly restrictive since can be both, but to assign any meaning at all Source Available it needs to be defined in relation to "Open Source", otherwise its meaningless.
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada/EU: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada/EU: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
Would love to hear how this compares to another popular go based full text search engine (with a not too dissimilar name) https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve?
Source (https://source.network)| USA/Canada: REMOTE | Full-Time | https://source.network/careers
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
At Source, we aim to revolutionize developer data management for the open web. Our mission is to simplify data handling for edge devices, local-first software, and distributed infrastructures, allowing developers to unleash their creativity and build world-changing tools that realize the open web’s full potential.
Our suite of new technologies work together to make it easy for developers to ship edge and local-first software. We empower developers to create software and devices that seamlessly communicate, offer granular data control, and secure data cryptographically to ensure trust. Join us in shaping the future of data management and the open web.
We’re growing fast and are looking to fill the below positions:
Can you describe the connection between the "VM" and the "MPC" implementation. The project is described as a VM for Multiparty computation, but (currently) doesn't do MPC? Implying its currently just a certain kind of VM?
Genuinely curious, fan of any tooling that makes writing MPC protocols easier.
Hi, sorry for missing this. I'm usually a lurker on HN.
Right now, it's just a general purpose VM that does the basics of what anyone would expect any VM to do. We are currently in the midst of implementing the MPC specific aspects to the VM, namely distributed computation and allowing anyone to plug in any MPC protocol they want as long as it conforms to our set of interfaces. We will be providing MPC protocols that we think are worthwhile for use cases that we know have users and as such, if you aren't a cryptographer but have a sense of where you want to use MPC, you can just use our VM and associated APIs without having to fiddle too much with the actual cryptography.
> Nowhere have I claimed that they didn't put work into this.
There's some mental gymnastics.
> please counter the opinion that I gave
The reply your responding to did exactly that, and you just gave more snarky responses.