Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

blog.kagi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 359 posts

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#301

Post by moksha256 »

literallyroy wrote: post #289
SamuelAdams wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they add “credit to raphaelrobert”, or a copy of your license to their code somewhere, Kagi will be compliant? I’ve never had any of my open source software used, and I typically license it with MIT, so I’m curious how other groups and organizations actually comply with the license.

They are compliant, the code being used is under the MIT license.

Yeah I'm as big of a FOSS fan as the next guy on here but you really can't complain about how someone uses your code if you used the MIT License...one of the most permissive licenses in existence.

If someone wants attribution or something then they should use a license that requires that thing.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#302

Post by jacekm »

arlort wrote: post #250
loughnane wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I’m just one guy, but lack of Monero support kept me away. This feature looks like it narrows the gap a bit though. Nice work

Don't know a bunch about cryptocurrencies, but couldn't you get the benefits of monero by just converting monero to btc before paying? Are the conversion fees too high?

You can, but to retain anonymity you'll need to go through decentralized exchange (DEX). This is extra hassle, especially if you have never done this before.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#304

Post by brookst »

moksha256 wrote: post #301
literallyroy wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are compliant, the code being used is under the MIT license.

Yeah I'm as big of a FOSS fan as the next guy on here but you really can't complain about how someone uses your code if you used the MIT License...one of the most permissive licenses in existence. If someone wants attribution or something then they should use a license that requires that thing.

There’s a gap between what is legally required and what is common courtesy.

I’m under no obligation to thank someone for holding a door for me; if I fail to do so it does not mean that person should switch to a different door-holding license in the future. It just means I’m a bit of a jerk.

When lifting an entire (permissive licensed) implementation it’s good form to say thanks.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#305

Post by xzjis »

Klaus23 wrote: post #151

If account settings are not possible because you could fingerprint users, then client-side filtering or reordering might be a solution. Safe-search or not, just transfer both result lists and make the client only show the one you want. The same could be done with languages, where you at least get the results for the bigger ones. Blacklists would hide your blocked crap sites. It may even be possible to implement the r…

That's really smart. You should suggest it to Kagi directly: https://kagifeedback.org/

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#306

Post by moksha256 »

brookst wrote: post #304
moksha256 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm as big of a FOSS fan as the next guy on here but you really can't complain about how someone uses your code if you used the MIT License...one of the most permissive licenses in existence. If someone wants attribution or something then they should use a license that requires that thing.

There’s a gap between what is legally required and what is common courtesy . I’m under no obligation to thank someone for holding a door for me; if I fail to do so it does not mean that person should switch to a different door-holding license in the future. It just means I’m a bit of a jerk. When lifting an entire (permissive licensed) implementation it’s good form to say thanks.

You're not wrong. But the door-holding example isn't really a good one because there's no such thing as a license for door-holding.

For FOSS, on the other hand, licenses are a well-established thing. And developers have free reign to pick a license for their code and they very commonly pick MIT...totally on their own volition. Which strips them of all privileges. It's like writing a book and explicitly setting it into the public domain. If that's what you want to do, that's great, but very commonly I don't think it's what developers actually want to do.

In the world of copyright, the long-standing legal default is for the author to own their work for a certain amount of time, whether or not the copyright is explicitly claimed. Because making public domain the legal default would be utterly insane.

I guess what I'm saying here is my beef isn't with entities that choose to be jerks—that's annoying and always gonna happen to some extent—it's more with the all-too-common decision to use the MIT License. And when I see people complain about it...I understand the sentiment but I also can't help but think that the folks complaining had it coming and it was totally avoidable.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#307

Post by xigoi »

italiancheese wrote: post #229

I want to pay for Kagi, but it's priced way too high (for me). Would love it if they implemented Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

https://kagifeedback.org/d/687-implement-regional-pricing/5

> Regional, student, annual...discounts are not possible because we are not currently making any profit to discount it off from.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#308

Post by brookst »

moksha256 wrote: post #306
brookst wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a gap between what is legally required and what is common courtesy . I’m under no obligation to thank someone for holding a door for me; if I fail to do so it does not mean that person should switch to a different door-holding license in the future. It just means I’m a bit of a jerk. When lifting an entire (permissive licensed) implementation it’s good form to say thanks.

You're not wrong. But the door-holding example isn't really a good one because there's no such thing as a license for door-holding. For FOSS, on the other hand, licenses are a well-established thing. And developers have free reign to pick a license for their code and they very commonly pick MIT...totally on their own volition. Which strips them of all privileges. It's like writing a book and explicitly setting it int…

I knew door holding was weak, but I think the principle holds. To me, it is reasonable to release under MIT with expectation of helping lots of people, and also to expect (not require) some credit if a notable company adopts kit and kaboodle.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#309

Post by jabroni_salad »

perdomon wrote: post #119

Can someone make a case for Kagi? I'm using Google + Claude for all my websearch needs. I don't feel like there's a gap there, but maybe that's because I've never experienced anything better and can't imagine it? I do value privacy, but I wouldn't pay extra for more private search results. I might pay extra for __better__ search results, but that's hard to measure. Just curious if anyone has had a legitimately great…

Here is a case for 'not google':

https://i.imgur.com/PQNm1Yc.png

I want a search engine to return useful results. Right now, google has been captured by revenue generating results. It wouldn't be so bad if useful results were making money, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Re: Privacy Pass Authentication for Kagi Search

#310

Post by azinman2 »

brookst wrote: post #308
moksha256 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong. But the door-holding example isn't really a good one because there's no such thing as a license for door-holding. For FOSS, on the other hand, licenses are a well-established thing. And developers have free reign to pick a license for their code and they very commonly pick MIT...totally on their own volition. Which strips them of all privileges. It's like writing a book and explicitly setting it int…

I knew door holding was weak, but I think the principle holds. To me, it is reasonable to release under MIT with expectation of helping lots of people, and also to expect (not require) some credit if a notable company adopts kit and kaboodle.

Door holding falls under a social contract.
Post reply on HN