As you might understand, having your own private open source library used by Discord is something big. Something that makes your effort worth while. So you download the distribution and look for your own, hard earned, copyright notice. Well it's not there because fuck you.<p>What I found by downloading the (Linux) Discord client from discordapp.com was that they clearly were distributing source copies of my project, but it had no license or copyright mentioning me (which is required). I also found that they are distributing ffmpeg binaries but I couldn't find any matching LGPL license or source code in the distribution.<p>So of course I contacted them. First via GitHub where I have reached them before, and then two times via their support people on their home page. I get about the same response as any one else: "I'm sorry but we cannot help you. Were you satisfied with the support response?".<p>It's not okay for companies to pull their pants down and take a big dump on your personal work. Not when they clearly do not even bother with complying with basic open source exchanges. If I write something I want to be properly mentioned as is required in my very license.<p>Discord, is this so fucking hard to understand?
(Discord Dev here)<p>Hey Alex, this definitely sounds like a miss on our part, so apologies.<p>As you know, we're fans of uws and not including the original license was a screw-up in our automation. We're working on fixing it and immediately releasing it with the proper license. I've also asked support to follow up with you directly in case there are further issues.<p>For the contact, either opening an issue on one of our repos or emailing our legal team (abuse@discordapp.com) would have been guaranteed to get you an accurate response. Unfortunately the verbiage you used in the email is very similar to that used in other support tickets we get for our API, and our team (as they did in your case) forwards users on to our API chat which can provide more in-depth/advanced support.
For anyone else slightly confused at first: the Discord Linux release (<a href="https://discordapp.com/download" rel="nofollow">https://discordapp.com/download</a>) includes uWebSockets in ./resources/bootstrap/discord_rpc/uws.js.<p>This is only the JS source code and there is no licensing information attached whatsoever.<p>This directly conflicts with uWebSocket's licence (<a href="https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets/blob/master/LICENSE" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets/blob/master/LICEN...</a>), which clearly states:<p><i>"3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution."</i>
> First via GitHub where I have reached them before, and then two times via their support people on their home page.<p>I don't know why you thought dev/tech support would be the path you go down. This is a legal issue, so if this matters to you, send them a legal notice. I've done the work of exporting their contact for you abuse@discordapp.com (from <a href="https://discordapp.com/tos" rel="nofollow">https://discordapp.com/tos</a>)
The library in question would be uWebSockets?<p><a href="https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets</a>
Would you mind sharing with HN the data that you shared with the Discord team? I'm afraid that you didn't link what the project was, or how exactly it's a "private open-source library", which seems like a self-contradictory statement.
From the attitude many discord devs have shown in their channels towards other devs, this doesn't surprise me. Unless you make bots for discord, there is little respect. Especially if you're creating your own UI features that Discord just 'happens' to implement once they get popular. While simultaneously turning around and bashing said platform it was possible in in the first place.<p>Also, dev/tech support is absolutely the correct path in many cases, because they /lead/ you to legal, if necessary. Why users are claiming otherwise does not reflect the purpose of having a support network. Infact, abuse@discordapp.com is much more for actual abuse of discord TOS, not directly legal matters. I could easily turn it around and ask why anyone would think /that/ is the correct contact.
They're on the Widely Adopted list [0] for the library.<p>I would give them extra time to respond. I don't see a valid reason or motivation on their part not to fix it.<p>0: <a href="https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets#widely-adopted" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets#widely-adopted</a>
If you don't get a satisfactory response from contacting them as nemothekid said, contact the EFF<p><a href="http://www.eff.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org</a>
They just amended it in their fork:<p><a href="https://github.com/hammerandchisel/uWebSockets/commit/cf2ebba898b81ac5b36ea4d583944d5e4938ec9b" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/hammerandchisel/uWebSockets/commit/cf2ebb...</a>
Of note, they also appear to have forked a version of uWebSockets from Sep 2016 [0] in their Github org.<p>0: <a href="https://github.com/hammerandchisel/uWebSockets" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/hammerandchisel/uWebSockets</a>
So this post gets 60 upvotes in 30 minutes and is immediately censored by HN and taken off the front page. Right, thank you very much for stealing my work, giving me no credit and then censoring my appeal.