111–120 of 153 posts
Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!
So you got your CS degree, worked for years in IT, passed tough interviews, joined FB, and now you're proud of animating those annoying emojis.
Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!
Why does the software license [1] include the following clause: > provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software Why didn't you guys choose MIT or BSD? It feels like the custom Facebook license is close to the intent of these, but it has that mysterious gotcha. In any case, thanks for the software! It looks really slick, and I definitely have a use case for using it to replace the sprite sheet I used…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have access to the source? Yes? It's open source. Open Source need not be free as in beer, nor as in freedom.
No. Call that "source available", "source access" or something, but "Open Source" is pretty much established to be defined by the OSI definition of the term: https://opensource.org/osd
"Open source" as a term or development methodology is older than both the OSI definition and the Debian manual it is based on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this might be silly, but why? what does Facebook gain by getting this library user adoption (beside some bug-reporting). I would think that for fb user adoption of the open source projects is not the goal, but getting OSS developers attracted and getting fixes/features etc. developed from them. Or is it some kind of pride? Fake internet point for having repositories on github?
My long-time-range guess is that this is FB's play for becoming a standard replacement/upgrade for GIFs. From the post: "Initially, we looked at common static image formats such as PNG sequences and GIFs, as well as even more compressed formats like WebP. It quickly became clear that these wouldn't work without drastically simplifying the animations for file size, and that we'd have to accept the drawback of static i…
Keyframes competes with animated SVGs, but not GIF/APNG/WebP.
This is really slick, and I'm going to investigate using it for the Donald Trump animation on jungle.horse. The license [1] doesn't look to be as encumbered as some of Facebook's other open source licenses, but does include a clause I found to be strange: > provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software So if I'm reading this correctly, it means only Facebook can redistribute this software? Wat. [1] h…
I've reproduced Keyframes and am distributing here: https://github.com/jjt/Keyframes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not misreading it. The license says we cannot fork the software. That's not open source.
They had better start paying their lawyers overtime. You can't do a PR without forking and people fork on Github for a multitude of reasons (I often fork into a group as a lazy form of bookmarking or collecting projects). Hell. I just clicked the 'fork' button. Where's my cease and desist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Call that "source available", "source access" or something, but "Open Source" is pretty much established to be defined by the OSI definition of the term: https://opensource.org/osd
The OSI should trademark the phrase "open source". License it for anyone claiming their software is open source (as defined by OSI), and send cease and desists to anyone who is using the phase incorrectly.
We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the `open source' concept into the mainstream.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/99/06/17/0213251/esr-on-the-...
Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!
What's the rationale behind putting this on github and asking for contributions, but having the code under a proprietary (non open source) license?
> We actively welcome your pull requests. Fork the repo and create your branch from master.
Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!
I get grey flashes over the animations/text in my HN reader (Materialistic).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not misreading it. The license says we cannot fork the software. That's not open source.
Isn't a different interpretation that a fork is, presumably, their software _plus_ your modification(s)? Thus, a fork is not "solely" their software anymore and is allowed.