5 ms·

IMO the only booru like site that has a better tagging/searching system than esix is derpibooru. It is fast enough to be almost scary. Even with highly complex

IMO the only booru like site that has a better tagging/searching system than esix is derpibooru. It is fast enough to be almost scary. Even with highly complex filters.

giancarlostoro 4y ago
I was curious because I am a back-end tech nerd, and apparently "derpibooru" (I had no idea what to expect) is running on Elixir (I assume Phoenix) specifically this: https://github.com/philomena-dev/philomena https://github.com/philomena-dev/philomena Edit: PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE LICENSE, it is AGPL licensed, which means if you copy any of the code into your back-end, your whole back-end must be open sourced, as a back-end nerd I stay away from anything AGPL'd just to be on the safe side of the law.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/662895347911098368/926926071985750026/instantsearch2.mp4 https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/662895347911098368/92... a demo of the search engine running locally. Yes, it is that fast. And its not just counts, but the actual result sets. (in this case, no fetching is done though) Also supports and/or, even nested, along with ranking by whether it has a specific search term (called boosting in the documentation) Oh, and in the example, the default blacklist was used. https://derpibooru.org/pages/search_syntax https://derpibooru.org/pages/search_syntax
- jascii 4y ago
  Fud. To quote section 13 of the AGPL license: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License."
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    Sounds like generic copyright feature, when you assign license on per file basis in source form. Such compiled combined work will be licensed under AGPL: 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
    - jascii 4y ago
      "but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such." I'm not sure where you got this, but that phrasing is not part of the AGPL license as posted on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
      - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
        It's from GPL3.
  - yodon 4y ago
    AGPL Section 13 as you quote it discussed the interaction of AGPL and GPL v3. It has nothing to do with the scenario the parent commenter was discussing involving the interaction of AGPL and closed-source non-GPL code.
    - toast0 4y ago
      Well, does that allow you to have the rest of your backend GPL licensed and simply not distributed? Nobody has a right to see the code unless they have the executable, and you're not giving anyone the executable, so... Kind of unfortunate if there's a leak though.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  > if you copy any of the code into your back-end, your whole back-end must be open sourced That’s a feature, not a bug. If you don’t want that, don’t use it.
  - giancarlostoro 4y ago
    Correct, but it would be foolish not to warn people BEFORE they peek around the code. GPL (and by extension I assume AGPL) states that even translating the work to a new language still constitutes as copying and therefore the resulting code must be GPL'd.
    - selfhoster11 4y ago
      All projects like this prominently include the license file in the root directory of their code repository. If you don’t read that, you only have yourself to blame. If you have read it but still don’t understand how the license works, don’t touch it or ask a lawyer to help.

IMO the only booru like site that has a better tagging/searching system than esix is derpibooru. It is fast enough to be almost scary. Even with highly complex filters.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

I was curious because I am a back-end tech nerd, and apparently "derpibooru" (I had no idea what to expect) is running on Elixir (I assume Phoenix) specifically this: https://github.com/philomena-dev/philomena https://github.com/philomena-dev/philomena Edit: PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE LICENSE, it is AGPL licensed, which means if you copy any of the code into your back-end, your whole back-end must be open sourced, as a back-end nerd I stay away from anything AGPL'd just to be on the safe side of the law.

Akronymus 4y ago
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/662895347911098368/926926071985750026/instantsearch2.mp4 https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/662895347911098368/92... a demo of the search engine running locally. Yes, it is that fast. And its not just counts, but the actual result sets. (in this case, no fetching is done though) Also supports and/or, even nested, along with ranking by whether it has a specific search term (called boosting in the documentation) Oh, and in the example, the default blacklist was used. https://derpibooru.org/pages/search_syntax https://derpibooru.org/pages/search_syntax
jascii 4y ago
Fud. To quote section 13 of the AGPL license: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License."
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  Sounds like generic copyright feature, when you assign license on per file basis in source form. Such compiled combined work will be licensed under AGPL: 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
  - jascii 4y ago
    "but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such." I'm not sure where you got this, but that phrasing is not part of the AGPL license as posted on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
    - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
      It's from GPL3.
- yodon 4y ago
  AGPL Section 13 as you quote it discussed the interaction of AGPL and GPL v3. It has nothing to do with the scenario the parent commenter was discussing involving the interaction of AGPL and closed-source non-GPL code.
  - toast0 4y ago
    Well, does that allow you to have the rest of your backend GPL licensed and simply not distributed? Nobody has a right to see the code unless they have the executable, and you're not giving anyone the executable, so... Kind of unfortunate if there's a leak though.
selfhoster11 4y ago
> if you copy any of the code into your back-end, your whole back-end must be open sourced That’s a feature, not a bug. If you don’t want that, don’t use it.
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  Correct, but it would be foolish not to warn people BEFORE they peek around the code. GPL (and by extension I assume AGPL) states that even translating the work to a new language still constitutes as copying and therefore the resulting code must be GPL'd.
  - selfhoster11 4y ago
    All projects like this prominently include the license file in the root directory of their code repository. If you don’t read that, you only have yourself to blame. If you have read it but still don’t understand how the license works, don’t touch it or ask a lawyer to help.