61–70 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People saying wrong things about the AGPL isn't an AGPL problem, it's an issue of people saying wrong things. AGPL allows competition. Any free software license does. It's rule 0 of free software. > it's chosen to to be a non-compete. Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? The issue would be for contributors contributing for to this code under CLA seeing…
> Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? No legal department will ever allow it due to the FUD. That's the whole fucking point.
I don't mind them not using my code. They are doing themselves here.
They have the human power to rebuild it anyway and I actually believe it should cost them.
it's actually them who are spreading the FUD, because they don't like the AGPL.
Meanwhile, my goal of providing software freedom to my users is fulfilled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bear has no VC investors: https://herman.bearblog.dev/manifesto/
edit: I thought this HN thread was about the Bear app never mind
Which you could have known by spending five seconds on https://lambdalpha.com, or actually reading your own link which calls Bear an "Apple Design Award winner notes app", which doesn't really sound like the Bear blog.
Stop spreading rampant misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases. (Edited for clarity).
This can't possibly be true, since the Linux kernel's code is GPL and approximately every tech company uses Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
> Author's note: the above thoughts are for how the AGPL is used in startup-land alongside a CLA — not for AGPL in general. The AGPL is a fine open source license for libraries and other infrastructure. The whole piece is about CLAs, the AGPL has absolutely nothing to do with signing over your copyrights. See Canonical for the same behaviour without the AGPL, the AGPL just requires that you allow your users to also s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases. (Edited for clarity).
I'm self-employed in Germany, and when I was employed, what was in the contract went more in the other direction: it was explicitly allowed to contribute to FOSS projects. Of course, it still would not have been OK to randomly add GPL software to a closed source customer project. If anyone had been stupid (uneducated, really) enough, somebody else on the same project would have noticed.
I’d like to see a “no jerks” license. It’d be MIT by default, but call out specific bad actors as being disallowed from using the software. That way your average corporate user wouldn’t need to consult a lawyer before adopting
It will be as useless in terms of enforcement as "shall be used for good, not evil." https://www.json.org/license.html
The problem of attempting to enumerate the jerks does seem pretty... insurmountable... to me though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
You might take that up with the FSF, which clearly disagrees with you about its "affront".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
> Author's note: the above thoughts are for how the AGPL is used in startup-land alongside a CLA — not for AGPL in general. The AGPL is a fine open source license for libraries and other infrastructure. The whole piece is about CLAs, the AGPL has absolutely nothing to do with signing over your copyrights. See Canonical for the same behaviour without the AGPL, the AGPL just requires that you allow your users to also s…
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…
That doesn't mean I think everything has to be open source. Bear is a blogging platform trying to make money and it seems fine to me for it not to be open source.