51–60 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licenses intended to be viral and poisonous are avoided by companies interested in ownership over their own IP. Huge shocker.
If you don't distribute the program you don't need to care that it's built with GPL dependencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only serious gripe with OnlyOffice is that when opening a CSV, you have to choose an encoding and delimiter, and there is no way to set a default. You must click twice, in two places, every single time you open a CSV.
CSV is not a standard (rfc4180 exists but only very few things actually pay attention to it) so no behavior is a sane behavior when trying to import it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licenses intended to be viral and poisonous are avoided by companies interested in ownership over their own IP. Huge shocker.
> viral and poisonous Viral, perhaps if you integrate a library, but in this case it doesn't make sense, you only need to distribute source code if you modify it. Poisonous makes no sense to me, can you clarify? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous 1. DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL ... 3. SPITEFUL, MALICIOUS In what ways is the GPL or AGPL destructive or harmful or spiteful or malicious? I find it the exact opp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only serious gripe with OnlyOffice is that when opening a CSV, you have to choose an encoding and delimiter, and there is no way to set a default. You must click twice, in two places, every single time you open a CSV.
CSV is not a standard (rfc4180 exists but only very few things actually pay attention to it) so no behavior is a sane behavior when trying to import it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is some confusion here. The linked GitHub repo clearly says Apache License, but their commercial website does say AGPL. They're not even remotely similar. The AGPL is regarded as so toxic that nearly all companies where office suites matter, place it on a "do not use" list. It's a good way to artificially limit your potential customers. It doesn't matter that they have a page saying "sure go ahead and use it in…
Totally bollocks. This is pure fud. Nothing else. AGPL DOES NOT restrict ability to be used internally. Agpl does NOT restrict selling software as it is. Agpl does not restrict using agpl software with proprietary software. Only thing that agpl prevent is, IF YOU MODIFY AGPL SOFTWARE, YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOURCE CODE TO USERS. Your modifications. Thats it. AGPL DOES NOT MANDATE upstreaming modifications. You can do it or…
Though I am not lawyer/license expert so that fact may be irrelevant more so using it as desktop app. But perception matters, if Goog/MSFT are not using it, a startup also won't risk using them lest some auditor flags it in next round of funding particularly if alternative is few dollars a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> viral and poisonous Viral, perhaps if you integrate a library, but in this case it doesn't make sense, you only need to distribute source code if you modify it. Poisonous makes no sense to me, can you clarify? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous 1. DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL ... 3. SPITEFUL, MALICIOUS In what ways is the GPL or AGPL destructive or harmful or spiteful or malicious? I find it the exact opp…
Can they hurt you if you accidentally use them without understanding the consequences?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can they hurt you if you accidentally use them without understanding the consequences?
Hmm, it sounds to me like so much of our world is poison, then. Most surveillance-capitalism software (so the bulk of the most popular websites) are for example poisonous then, no? Unless you'd like to argue that unintentionally turning yourself into a research subject isn't really harmful, in which case I argue accidentally using a license that requires you to share any licensed code you change to also not really be…