11–20 of 23 posts
Why are they using Telegram's logo as their icon for "Open"?
No but seriously I admit it's not a good choice. We will change it to something else. I personally never used Telegram, I do not even know how their Website looks like.
source code of various related projects: https://github.com/NC3-LU/
Licensed under GNU AGPL, nice.
https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512269055763566592
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licensed under GNU AGPL, nice.
It's not really nice; the AGPL is considered by many (myself included) to be a nonfree license created by anticapitalist zealots. https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512269055763566592 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267950551867395 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267952573526026
I stopped reading here. But this will definitely make my day. I won't even start to list examples of companies (private sector, public sector, research, etc.) that are not in this "only entities".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licensed under GNU AGPL, nice.
It's not really nice; the AGPL is considered by many (myself included) to be a nonfree license created by anticapitalist zealots. https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512269055763566592 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267950551867395 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267952573526026
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really nice; the AGPL is considered by many (myself included) to be a nonfree license created by anticapitalist zealots. https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512269055763566592 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267950551867395 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267952573526026
Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source, but isn't providing the revised source pretty easy?
FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely.
Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitchen sink running remotely near the computer running a single line of AGPL licensed code.
> The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source
The diff is having to provide source for interacting with a remote copy vs having to provide source for local copies only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source, but isn't providing the revised source pretty easy?
> Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely. Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitch…
If I were to invest my time to build something for the community, it has to be GPL/agpl or sspl. That's my personal preference so yeah
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source, but isn't providing the revised source pretty easy?
> Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely. Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitch…
There are many situations in which complying with clauses like this is almost impossible
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely. Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitch…
The "FUD" exists because AGPL is poorly written. There are many situations in which complying with clauses like this is almost impossible > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your versi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely. Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitch…
The "FUD" exists because AGPL is poorly written. There are many situations in which complying with clauses like this is almost impossible > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your versi…
How is that almost impossible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "FUD" exists because AGPL is poorly written. There are many situations in which complying with clauses like this is almost impossible > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your versi…
The part you quoted says you have to provide the source for the remote software on the same server as the remote software, for no charge. How is that almost impossible?