431–440 of 509 posts
As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is. I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-availa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of those statements are reasonable, but they don't really change the point I'm making from what I can tell. Having trouble marketing "free software" doesn't justify anything about how an entirely separate term should be used.
I actually put this in the wrong thread. Disregard, I have no clue where the thread I meant to put that was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, there’s a chance it’s exactly what he said, “I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted the code to be available for people to learn from, and to make it easily auditable so users could validate claims I have made about the privacy and security of the platform.” … it doesn’t have to be some to be some sort of nefarious OSS altruism, it really could be, “maybe people would want to see ho…
Possibly, but that would be pretty damning. A license isn't something you should YOLO. If he is that laissez-faire about licensing the source code then what other important aspects of the project has he not given sufficient thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon offers lots of AGPL software, and they fully respect the license in all cases. Ultimately the GPL is about protecting users' rights at the expense of developers' rights. So as long as AWS can offer a better/cheaper managed version of a software service, while still giving the users all details on how to run the same service if they chose to, then the AGPL is completely achieving its aims, even if the original…
> protecting users' rights at the expense of developers' rights. Protecting the user's right to compete with the developer is not sustainable. Protecting the user's right to run the software for free on their own or in their company so long as they don't resell it is perfectly salient and should be enough for anyone. That's really all the freedom a user needs. If you're asking for more, it's because you want to take…
One company uses the software internally to create more value for a customer of theirs.
A second company uses the software internally to provide a paid service to a customer.
A third company resells software they bought to their customer.
The end result is the same: Company makes money, customer exhanges money for value. Somehow only one or two of those use cases would be legal.
[flagged]
Have you considered that some people listen to text rather than read it? Do you think screen readers, non-native English speakers, or anyone else listening to these are able to reasonably differentiate between “Open Source” and “open source”? Most readers won’t notice the difference or disregard it as meaningless and if you have to explain to everyone your position on a matter of communication it’s likely that you ar…
As one of them, I can tell that I agree with @NiloCK.
Maybe because I'm French so I had to learn even stronger rules, but to me if someone doesn't capitalize proper nouns in English, I'll first think that I misunderstood what they were writing because of my deficiencies, before coming to the conclusion that they didn't capitalize.
Whereas, in French, I'm confident enough to mentally capitalize without even thinking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it can happen, but ask the people maintaining open source projects long term, how much it helped them pass silly leetcode interviews, which companies insist must be done, even if you have a golden track record.
“Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off.” https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768
He posted that in the heat of the moment while angry, but they didn’t literally reject him for a single LeetCode problem. He admits that he was just not at a point where being hired into a FAANG job would have been a good move.
That one Tweet has fueled years of internet rage from people who didn’t get the whole story, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your project gets adopted by Big Tech then your market rate as an engineer just went way up. It’s a huge badge of honor and a rare accomplishment. You’re thinking too directly if you can’t imagine how having your OSS project adopted by Big Tech isn’t a career boost.
Maybe it can happen, but ask the people maintaining open source projects long term, how much it helped them pass silly leetcode interviews, which companies insist must be done, even if you have a golden track record.
I’ve also worked at companies where people who write OSS have been recruited with comp packages that would be hard to get even at FAANG because their OSS work was crucial to the company.
This screams of uneducated regret with a sprinkling of greed. How do you make your code open source but then not understand what open source is? Or even read the license?
I can say that if I had spent years working on a blog platform with some decent side hustle income I may want to protect it better if I thought my main income might change, by choice or otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me From the license at https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248... >: " You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality " Given that the exclusive purpose of the Software in question is to implement a managed service for its users' hosting needs, I'm having trouble understan…
It’s saying that you can use Bear for your own blog, but you can’t launch a service that hosts other people’s blogs using it.
Where does it say that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's so bad with this? It's lying. It's an open source project and a business model built on deceit. I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity above all. The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions. And these same people will relicense without a thought, too. I think we should care about these things, otherwise we repeat history over and over again.
> veiled intentions The intentions behind the AGPL were never veiled. The intent was to close the loophole in the GPL3 that is opened by providing software as a network service. If you were to release software that provides a network service under the GPL3, someone else could use and modify it without sharing their changes, but while also providing it as a service. AGPL3 closes this loophole by ensuring that everyone…
They (the author aka the startup) wouldn't have chosen the AGPL if not for enterprises/bigtech/competition being scared of it.
They didn't choose AGPL to increase freedom 0 (AGPL's purpose), they chose it to decrease it.
Thus, veiled intentions.