This tsk-tsk is misguided. There's a time and place to shame companies for acting in bad faith, and we should do it, but I don't think it's the case here. It does not seem like damage control for intentional malice.
The TL on the project should have done better, but it was a good sign that they had originally taken the time to acknowledge Spegel's author's help. It's very likely that someone else dealt with the actual code and license text and didn't know any better.
The PR text is reviewed by lawyers. The default advice from lawyers is "do not admit any wrongdoing". They probably suggested that the license text be fixed silently with no apology. The PR department likely convinced them that a public apology would be good for optics and it doesn't seem soulless either.
They should have done better. They admitted that. They may or may not change their internal processes, but it's now in the record book. Case closed.
And the author of Spegel should not have used a different license if he wanted "more <<recognition>>". He wanted the recognition specified by the MIT license.
They want you to be intimidated by their reputation because it's easier if you make concessions first hoping to get some benefit later. Keep in mind, these are business people and they're very good at it (otherwise they wouldn't be giants). The benefit will never materialize. Working for free just means it was an easy win and you left money on the table.
Do not work for free. Large companies have a shit ton of money. All you need to do is provide an economical argument in the form of your rate (which should take into account their expenses for having an employee / team work on it instead, hint: 2 x total compensation). Getting paid is just a matter of the guy who reached out to you to talk to his skip manager to get a verbal 'ok', and then the accounting department takes care of it. They're not going to pass on you just because you asked to be paid for your time - a business is used to paying for services. If they do pass on you without even negotiating your rate, then they were definitely not serious and nothing good would have come out of it for you.
Source: dev working at FAANG with 3rd party companies.
> these are business people and they're very good at it (otherwise they wouldn't be giants)
just adding the point that the people who made them giants have all left by now, and the people they have now are incredibly good at internal politics rather than actual biz. You will probably find that they are more interested in how you can make them look good rather than how you can make their company money.
But yes, do not work for free. Large companies have a shit ton of money. Agree 100% with parent.
You can "do whatever you want with this code", but there's a catch: you have to give credit to the original author. You might not care about the credit, but lots of people care.
You can't just cherrypick the things you like about a license. All of the conditions of the license apply.
You're thinking about what people can do with the code, like copying, editing, and distributing. This is not it. We're talking about giving credit to the original author, as per the license.
For those who don't feel like taking math courses in a formal setting, making games from scratch is a fun way to learn and apply linear algebra and calculus.
I never really needed determinants in my life until I tried moving a spaceship towards another object. Trying to render realistic computer graphics gets you into some deep topics like FFTs and the physics of light and materials, with some scary-looking math, but I can feel my mind sharpening with each turn of the page in the book.
Algorithms by Sedgewick is pretty good for learning the fundamentals, imo, and sufficient (together with the Cracking the Coding Interview book) to pass interviews at the FAANGs I've worked at (and was an interviewer at for years).
Oooh, I'm a BCtCI author, but I admit Sedgewick is the algo expert! His book is more about data structures and algorithms than about coding interviews (related but very different).
If you needed to completely learn data structures and algorithms from scratch, I would NOT recommend his book, but instead, his FREE COURSE since it is so much more visual (and free): https://www.coursera.org/learn/algorithms-part1
For what it is worth, taking a course on DS&A is very different than getting good at these interviews for most people. The two are closely related but very different.
Offtopic: I grew up in a tiny post-soviet third world country. Aside from the usual daily struggles, one lesser known aspect of that life is that we did not have access to primary sources of information or the people who invented the things we were using.
We only had a book in my native language on Pascal. I had heard of C from a magazine that had a CD with a C compiler on it, and I walked into a library wanting to learn C but all they had was a dusty book on COBOL in Russian. Later I bought a book on x86 assembly, also in Russian, because that's all I could find, and it just felt like I'm living inside a leaky bucket whereas I was hungry for the firehose of knowledge.
When we got dial-up Internet, I did not sleep for days. The floodgates were open. I had access to tons of information online, in original English, from primary sources. People I've only had heard about, like Torvalds, would just share information directly on the Internet, like it's another Tuesday. To me it felt like I went to Disneyland and I was meeting all my heroes. You can just... learn about any topic and see the people who invented those topics. You could even send them messages.
25 years later, I still feel like that kid sometimes. I'm thankful for HN. Alan Kay replied to me once, and it made my year! Alan M-Fing Kay. I met rms once in the flesh and could not believe my eyes. I regularly see messages from Walter Bright on HN like he's a real human being and I have to remind myself that yes, he's alive, real and I exist in the same world as him and can actually interact.
I and kids around the world these days are lucky to not be stuck in a world where you cannot learn more than they let you.
I don't mind the offtopic if it's a nice story like that.
I really hope we'll find a way to give the Internet back at least a part of this magic. It makes me sad to see that young people today only know the net as the nightmarish distortion of what it was once promised to be.
In my experience with a mesh wi-fi project, physical devices come with real world physical side-effects: accidents happen, devices go offline, or get stolen, or knocked off the walls/shelves, a physical location needs to be negotiated with the space owner (less of a problem if the number of venues is in the hundreds as we have business people to handle those at scale), dust, water, heat, animals, etc.
It's not a big problem if you want to equip one venue or a couple, but scaling the operation means these side-effects scale too, and we had to work on solutions to handle those, rather than working on our core competency of mesh wi-fi. Unsurprisingly the project was scrapped despite being technically feasible on a small scale - we had a couple of sites.
Virtualizing a physical space gives you more flexibility. It keeps most problems in the software engineering space and limits physical requirements (eg someone might still need to walk around an airport to update the model, but I can't think of any other major ones).
That said, AI is sexy (right now), Meta is heavy in the MR space and the tech is reusable, even if it's not the most energy-efficient solution.
(disclaimer: just my personal ramblings, I don't work on project Aria)
The TL on the project should have done better, but it was a good sign that they had originally taken the time to acknowledge Spegel's author's help. It's very likely that someone else dealt with the actual code and license text and didn't know any better.
The PR text is reviewed by lawyers. The default advice from lawyers is "do not admit any wrongdoing". They probably suggested that the license text be fixed silently with no apology. The PR department likely convinced them that a public apology would be good for optics and it doesn't seem soulless either.
They should have done better. They admitted that. They may or may not change their internal processes, but it's now in the record book. Case closed.
And the author of Spegel should not have used a different license if he wanted "more <<recognition>>". He wanted the recognition specified by the MIT license.
reply