4 ms·

Should I package it as a .deb, or what makes something self-hosted? The code is already on github: https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/ https://github.com/lgomma

Should I package it as a .deb, or what makes something self-hosted? The code is already on github: https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/ https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/ (link was buried in the text - I had a hard time prioritizing what people would want to read first, since that depends on your use-case). I guess magic wormhole is the wrong context to be making this argument in since everyone's primed for peer to peer now, but in general, yeah when using dro.pm it will put your data on dro.pm, similar to how pastebin stores your data when you use pastebin. It otherwise (and that's why I made this design decision) couldn't work after you close the tab, making it much less suitable for most of the intended use-cases. If you want peer to peer file transfer, you could have a look at https://file.pizza https://file.pizza (not made by me)

shkkmo 5y ago
You license is non-standard and does not appear to permit self hosting. This appears to me much more like blantant self promotion rather than attempt to participate in the discussion. Your tool has none of the requested features (self hosted file transfer using the native share dialog.)
- lucgommans 5y ago
  Again, I already wrote: > though I still have to change the license to be more permissive (I've decided that I won't pursue this as a commercial thing, just open a ticket if you want me to change the license sooner than whenever I work on this next). Guess that'll have to be now then. Getting this sort of crap is what makes me wonder why I bother putting this work out there in the first place. > Your tool has none of the requested features The main premise was a way to have file sharing between tablets, phones, and computers. This does that. It is open source (as of now) and has an Android share app to boot[1]. Anything else you're very welcome to make yourself, it's not a commercial plug, I'm obviously disclosing my affiliation, I host this on my personal machine at home, you're just welcome to make use of this or not if you don't like it. [1] https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/tree/master/android/dropm.luc https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/tree/master/android/dropm...
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    If it has a closed license, you haven't really "put it out there" yet have you? If you are already feeling drained by it, you probably don't actually want to run an open source project...
    - lucgommans 5y ago
      This discussion isn't constructive. To reflect on how I interpret what you write: first the complaint is that one can't self-host it when the post already contained a github link, then that it doesn't have a share app when in fact it does (at the same link that I now posted a second time), and now that I shouldn't be running an open source project altogether. Perhaps judge whether I am suited for running this by how I treat your contributions when you make them. Otherwise, there's always that fork button!
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        I'm glad you moved to a more permisive license, it now could be self hosted with a bit of work. Neither your initial comment, nor the project readme discuss the Android App. You have to browse the project dirextory to find out that it exists. The Android app has the dro.pm url hardcorded as a string and generally does not appear setup to work with a self-hosted solution. All of this is fixable, but it very much belies a project that is immature. I would personally be uncomfortable promoting this as a solution without being very clear about the limitations and work required to fit the specidies use case. I definitely never intended to say that you shouldn't ever run an open source project. My earlier wording was not done well. My point is that if you are burning out this early in open sourcing this project, then maybe this particular project is not meaningful or valuable enough to be worth it to you.
        lucgommans 5y ago
        That is fair advice, thank you for this reply (sincerely). I wouldn't describe this as burning out, for what it's worth, but I do see what you mean.
- fao_ 5y ago
  > You license is non-standard and does not appear to permit self hosting. You were just given carte blanche to host it, by the author in public. If that isn't a legal exception, I really, really do not know what is. Also, if you do self-host it, who is going to find out and sue you? Software licenses are not magical. The hammer of god is only going to come down on you if the person: a) sees you do it b) has the power to stop you And if they're outside of the GNU project or the Linux foundation, they very likely do not! And regardless, that only matters if: c) you have the money to pay for the damages Which unless you're rich (I dunno, maybe you are rich), you probably don't!
  - em-bee 5y ago
    that's quite irrelevant. not everyone has the time and energy to deal with legal uncertainty or a lawsuit. even if they can't take any money from you, the stress could have a major effect on your life. so no thanks. and if you run a business, it's automatically a no-go. however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. note that i am not suggesting that the author of the product should change their license, or clarify it with regards to self-hosting, just that your advice to ignore the actual license is dangerous.
    - fao_ 5y ago
      In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it. So the license does not apply with this exemption in place, and that would be arguable in a court of law. Now with my point in general, > however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. Right, but if they are ignored by large companies, there's no chance in hell that we're ever going to find out about it. The fact of the matter is that big companies really do not have to give a shit, at this point, because even if someone challenges them, it's unlikely that any one person is going to have the financing to win the war of attrition that will follow. Likewise, if you take someone's code and it's not open source, and you don't actually distribute it, but instead just host it, and you're small enough, then the license itself does not matter. The claim that pointing out that the rules only matter as far as the rules can be enforced, actually damages the rules, is utterly absurd. The people who will want to ignore the rules and do whatever, and bank on not getting caught are already doing that.

shkkmo 5y ago

You license is non-standard and does not appear to permit self hosting. This appears to me much more like blantant self promotion rather than attempt to participate in the discussion. Your tool has none of the requested features (self hosted file transfer using the native share dialog.)

lucgommans 5y ago
Again, I already wrote: > though I still have to change the license to be more permissive (I've decided that I won't pursue this as a commercial thing, just open a ticket if you want me to change the license sooner than whenever I work on this next). Guess that'll have to be now then. Getting this sort of crap is what makes me wonder why I bother putting this work out there in the first place. > Your tool has none of the requested features The main premise was a way to have file sharing between tablets, phones, and computers. This does that. It is open source (as of now) and has an Android share app to boot[1]. Anything else you're very welcome to make yourself, it's not a commercial plug, I'm obviously disclosing my affiliation, I host this on my personal machine at home, you're just welcome to make use of this or not if you don't like it. [1] https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/tree/master/android/dropm.luc https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/tree/master/android/dropm...
- shkkmo 5y ago
  If it has a closed license, you haven't really "put it out there" yet have you? If you are already feeling drained by it, you probably don't actually want to run an open source project...
  - lucgommans 5y ago
    This discussion isn't constructive. To reflect on how I interpret what you write: first the complaint is that one can't self-host it when the post already contained a github link, then that it doesn't have a share app when in fact it does (at the same link that I now posted a second time), and now that I shouldn't be running an open source project altogether. Perhaps judge whether I am suited for running this by how I treat your contributions when you make them. Otherwise, there's always that fork button!
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I'm glad you moved to a more permisive license, it now could be self hosted with a bit of work. Neither your initial comment, nor the project readme discuss the Android App. You have to browse the project dirextory to find out that it exists. The Android app has the dro.pm url hardcorded as a string and generally does not appear setup to work with a self-hosted solution. All of this is fixable, but it very much belies a project that is immature. I would personally be uncomfortable promoting this as a solution without being very clear about the limitations and work required to fit the specidies use case. I definitely never intended to say that you shouldn't ever run an open source project. My earlier wording was not done well. My point is that if you are burning out this early in open sourcing this project, then maybe this particular project is not meaningful or valuable enough to be worth it to you.
      - lucgommans 5y ago
        That is fair advice, thank you for this reply (sincerely). I wouldn't describe this as burning out, for what it's worth, but I do see what you mean.
fao_ 5y ago
> You license is non-standard and does not appear to permit self hosting. You were just given carte blanche to host it, by the author in public. If that isn't a legal exception, I really, really do not know what is. Also, if you do self-host it, who is going to find out and sue you? Software licenses are not magical. The hammer of god is only going to come down on you if the person: a) sees you do it b) has the power to stop you And if they're outside of the GNU project or the Linux foundation, they very likely do not! And regardless, that only matters if: c) you have the money to pay for the damages Which unless you're rich (I dunno, maybe you are rich), you probably don't!
- em-bee 5y ago
  that's quite irrelevant. not everyone has the time and energy to deal with legal uncertainty or a lawsuit. even if they can't take any money from you, the stress could have a major effect on your life. so no thanks. and if you run a business, it's automatically a no-go. however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. note that i am not suggesting that the author of the product should change their license, or clarify it with regards to self-hosting, just that your advice to ignore the actual license is dangerous.
  - fao_ 5y ago
    In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it. So the license does not apply with this exemption in place, and that would be arguable in a court of law. Now with my point in general, > however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. Right, but if they are ignored by large companies, there's no chance in hell that we're ever going to find out about it. The fact of the matter is that big companies really do not have to give a shit, at this point, because even if someone challenges them, it's unlikely that any one person is going to have the financing to win the war of attrition that will follow. Likewise, if you take someone's code and it's not open source, and you don't actually distribute it, but instead just host it, and you're small enough, then the license itself does not matter. The claim that pointing out that the rules only matter as far as the rules can be enforced, actually damages the rules, is utterly absurd. The people who will want to ignore the rules and do whatever, and bank on not getting caught are already doing that.