zlacker

Hmm a bit of a tone shift from: https://fly.io/docs/about/open-source/

> Fly.io builds on the work of a tremendous open source infrastructure community. We want open source authors to benefit from their work because we think a healthy, thriving open source ecosystem will help us build better products.

To the fine article:

> Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer playing this card? Cut me a little slack as I ask you to shove this concern up your ass.

>>thombl+(OP)
Imho, the fly.io people are largely performative HN attention seekers that practice writing posts to produce engagement. It's almost charming in the way it resembles the early-on blogosphere, and you should read them as token summaries of "this is a popular sentiment right now, framed to appear a bit wise and edgy". They're often wordy versions of "that one trick they don't want you to know" or "am I really the only one that [actually quite popular thing]".

In the sense that the posts distill whatever HN at the time would accept as thought leadership it's a good pulse check on the community.

>>thombl+(OP)
It's rather shocking for a company to admit to flaunting software licensing in public communications.

But this is not new https://fly.io/blog/wrong-about-gpu/

> At one point, we hex-edited the [NVIDIA] closed-source drivers to trick them into thinking our hypervisor was QEMU.