Why don't I ever see CC on OSS? Always these complicated licenses.
just to understand, have you ever read the BSD license or the MIT license? Both very prevalent in OSS
Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
21–30 of 180 posts
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#22Sadly, I'm afraid the AGPL license is going to make this untouchable to businesses… :-( [Edit] Interestingly, they cover that. I suppose if you're just running Pijul rather than integrating with its code, it might be safe to use in a corporate environment. Still, it's likely to be offputting.
Why do you find it offputting? IANAL but it basically doesn't allow you to add code to (or get code from) Pijul itself and making it in another license. You can use it to store closed source code, you can host it yourself, offer it as a sevice for money, you can even create your own extensions as long as you release them AGPL... I feel that AGPL for a product is misunderstood and pre-rejected without justification by…
>I feel that AGPL for a product is misunderstood and pre-rejected without justification by far too many.
Isn't that precisely the parent comment's point?
Perhaps it shouldn't be this way, but the argument is that the AGPL will make pijul "untouchable" by businesses, de facto.
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you find it offputting? IANAL but it basically doesn't allow you to add code to (or get code from) Pijul itself and making it in another license. You can use it to store closed source code, you can host it yourself, offer it as a sevice for money, you can even create your own extensions as long as you release them AGPL... I feel that AGPL for a product is misunderstood and pre-rejected without justification by…
>I feel that AGPL for a product is misunderstood and pre-rejected without justification by far too many. Isn't that precisely the parent comment's point? Perhaps it shouldn't be this way, but the argument is that the AGPL will make pijul "untouchable" by businesses, de facto .
but does granparent commenter find it off putting now that he realized it's not content viral? It's weird that it's not today's Oracle or Microsoft equivalent spreading the FUD/false info nowadays but developers in discussions on this very site. AGPL explicitly does not touch the content it processes, I expect a legal department to be pretty good at understanding that unless they heard something and don't bother to read the license.
Anyway I don't really care anymore. We act based on what we believe not on facts (this is not directed to any parent comments, to be clear). Whatever
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#24Sadly, I'm afraid the AGPL license is going to make this untouchable to businesses… :-( [Edit] Interestingly, they cover that. I suppose if you're just running Pijul rather than integrating with its code, it might be safe to use in a corporate environment. Still, it's likely to be offputting.
Only uneducated people think that merely using or deploying AGPL software is 'problematic' in any way. Please don't spread that unreasonable fear.
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I feel that AGPL for a product is misunderstood and pre-rejected without justification by far too many. Isn't that precisely the parent comment's point? Perhaps it shouldn't be this way, but the argument is that the AGPL will make pijul "untouchable" by businesses, de facto .
but does granparent commenter find it off putting now that he realized it's not content viral? It's weird that it's not today's Oracle or Microsoft equivalent spreading the FUD/false info nowadays but developers in discussions on this very site. AGPL explicitly does not touch the content it processes, I expect a legal department to be pretty good at understanding that unless they heard something and don't bother to r…
Again, I think the two of you are arguing on different levels.
You're saying AGPL shouldn't be offputting. He's saying that by some quirk of circumstance, it is.
In other words, his argument is that picking AGPL was a poor strategic decision, given its (admittedly undeserved) baggage.
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#26"Because Pijul is based on a mathematical model of collaborative edition, its behavior matches intution, every time."
That's not how math and/or intuition works.
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#27How does this compare to git?
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#28Hopefully they release "workable pijul" soon (they said on January 10th that they were almost there) [0], they haven't updated the source in the darcs repository June 1st.
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#29Would love to see more explanation (with diagrams) of their patching model. Right now I'm not convinced it has any intuitive advantage.
Re: Pijul – A free and open source distributed version control system
#30Sadly, I'm afraid the AGPL license is going to make this untouchable to businesses… :-( [Edit] Interestingly, they cover that. I suppose if you're just running Pijul rather than integrating with its code, it might be safe to use in a corporate environment. Still, it's likely to be offputting.
Only uneducated people think that merely using or deploying AGPL software is 'problematic' in any way. Please don't spread that unreasonable fear.
I can't even.