21–30 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty common thing to do – even the FSF does this for GNU projects.
The FSF situation is a bit different, assigning your copyrights to them is making a donation to charity. They also allow you to take back the copyright at any time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FSF situation is a bit different, assigning your copyrights to them is making a donation to charity. They also allow you to take back the copyright at any time.
Out of curiosity how do they allow you to take back the copyright at any time? That seems like it would defeat the purpose of copyright assignment.
The idea of assignment to FSF is not merely to guarantee to the world that the original copyright holder won't offer competing licenses or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity how do they allow you to take back the copyright at any time? That seems like it would defeat the purpose of copyright assignment.
Copyright assignment lets the entity take full management of the copyright including license enforcement etc. The idea of assignment to FSF is not merely to guarantee to the world that the original copyright holder won't offer competing licenses or something.
That seems like it would be potentially incredibly disruptive (e.g. if a contributor decides several years after a lot of work has been built on top of the contributed code to claw back the rights), especially because as far as I'm aware there isn't a separate license you give the FSF on a contribution, just the assignment. AFAICT it wouldn't even make sense to give the FSF a license because you don't own the code anymore, the FSF does.
I can't find anything on the FSF website that allows this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using Jitsi and Google Hangouts for years, and in terms of reliability/quality, I can't really tell any difference. Haven't used Zoom much. The nice thing about about Jitsi is it's the most simple process I've seen: just tell people to go to a simple vanity URL (URL you get to design) and that's all. I sometimes find Hangouts confusing with all the invitation, accepting, etc. For people I videochat with oft…
Bear in mind that your URL is your password, and you might occasionally get randos joining you if it's too simple a URL. Happened to me once at work, got some giggling people whilst we were pairing, they then hung up immediately :)
These days anyone with a bit of programming knowledge can now open WebRTC sessions from the server, decrypt the contents, and multiplex streams back to clients (great for large group video chats). A great capability IMO, but immense potential for abuse by bad actors. I think now is a perfect time for people "in the know" to start educating the public on this.
Not open source but we've been using https://team.video for our standup calls. The timer feature in the agenda sidebar can be pretty handy sometimes.
I think it's unwise to offer 1) proprietary solutions in the age of surveillance capitalism. 2) offer in-browser cryptography to ensure security. I don't see any end-to-end encryption elements in that. Your data gets essentially delivered to the service. Do we really want that? Haven't the companies like FB already shown you should never trust them with your data? I mean, I'm baffled to see people would go in circles…
We were using this for a while to do meetings for sr.ht, but we recently switched to - believe it or not - Mumble. It's old and unsexy but damn it's reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty common thing to do – even the FSF does this for GNU projects.
The FSF situation is a bit different, assigning your copyrights to them is making a donation to charity. They also allow you to take back the copyright at any time.