> He told me the training process took about 2.5 hours on a GPU at Vast.ai, and cost less than $2.

This is a SaaS waiting to happen.

https://waxy.org/2022/11/invasive-diffusion-how-one-unwillin... This was on the front page last year.

Rod Sims, head of ACCC at the time, asserted that Valve's original no-refund stance broke Australian law.

> Under Australian Consumer Law, everybody who buys a product or a service has a right to a refund if the product doesn’t work. They have a right to a refund, or a repair. Those rights are enshrined in Australian Law, and our allegation is that Valve sought to remove those consumer rights which is a breach of Australian Consumer Law

[1] https://gizmodo.com.au/2014/08/accc-commissioner-heres-why-w...

The popular open source projects make great targets for low-multiple acqui-hires, derisking the investment. They also have huge established branding and generally obvious opportunities for displacing existing players. In a non-zero interest rate environment, those factors make established open source projects a more appealing bet.

Since they mentioned the company, undercutting and eating the market share of DataBricks is enough to appeal to some investors.

> When will VC companies stop *conflating source available with open source*?

*Misrepresenting* "open source" is the problem. "source available" is the correct phrase

- Upton Sinclair

> whether an OSS project lends itself to monetization is a really interesting and subtle question. rule of thumb, be at least two of these: big, boring (roughly correlates with "infrastructural" as @patio11 puts it), and lacking obvious substitutes

The monetization strategy is only a part of the viability story.

The Shopify acquisition of Remix (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33405997) established the viability of this investment strategy.

NodeJS uses the MIT license [1] and reproduces the license for the MIT-licensed Acorn.

OP stripped the copyright statement and license attribution without mentioning hlky or the originating project in the license file. OP proceeded to confuse matters by assuming that "AGPL" suffices. It seems like the copyright statement was the offense here.

A simple email or github issue might have resolved the matter. Given the tenor of the relationship between the OP and hlky it should be no surprise that hlky opted for the "nuclear option"

[1] https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/LICENSE

It is a separate conversation if any of those variables change.

"received wrong item but didn't fight" -> "concern that future orders may be wrong" -> "use amazon less or for smaller items" -> "prime is not worth it" -> "leave"

The difference between that and the chargeback, at first blush, is that you at least get your money back on the item if you chargeback.