James_K

49 ms·

781.
by James_K 3y ago
I can see myself using this even though I know how to do most of this stuff. I don't have the exact syntax of a package memorised and I think this is probably the easiest way to write one. It doesn't have to be revolutionary, just
782.
by James_K 3y ago
There is no need for randomised output, and they've said themselves that you can recover the input from the output. It's literally just so that it looks like something cool and technological is happening. You can skip IDs that con
783.
by James_K 3y ago
I think the issue here is a confusion about what "bias" means. If they are self-assessing at random, then the high performers will all underestimate themselves, but this is not a bias towards underestimation as they are choosing r
784.
by James_K 3y ago
I guess they haven't heard of base-64.
785.
by James_K 3y ago
> Is the messaging on that URL you found misleading? Yes, and we will improve upon that Will you improve on the rest of your messaging? For instance, the FSL is not "closer to open source than source available". It is just sour
786.
by James_K 3y ago
Thank you. I hope to see this quickly amended to reflect that your software is source-available. I would also advise that you are very careful around this in the future. As you can see, I and many other developers are very passionate about
787.
by James_K 3y ago
1. Then call yourself "mostly open source" instead of "open source" 2. I know. I type one because it is shorter. As cool of a pedantic ad-hominem as this is, my arguments all hold up when you replace FOSS with open sourc
788.
by James_K 3y ago
> Note that the license website is pretty clear that it is not Open Source Then fix this one: https://open.sentry.io/ You have admitted that you aren't open source and that this is a blatant lie so remove it.
789.
by James_K 3y ago
Go to this link https://open.sentry.io/ and explain how it is made clear that Sentry isn't actually open source. You can't. No amount of good faith turns "We're Open Source and we don't feel the nee
790.
by James_K 3y ago
> what they do want is customers Exactly. So they should stop pretending they're open source when this is really just source available as a sales decision. It's also bad for customers like you since you might be mislead into th
791.
by James_K 3y ago
Imagine if you had donated to a "charitably minded" organisation, then later discovered that they were only an "almost charity". I don't think you would be pleased with that. This is how someone donating their time
792.
by James_K 3y ago
If you explain how I've been in bad faith here, I'd be willing to rectify that. You asked a question and I gave you a pretty straight answer. I just can't see why you'd talk about FOSS so much if you really "want n
793.
by James_K 3y ago
EDIT: actually, you couldn't be more blatently lying about this. https://open.sentry.io/ > We're Open Source The title of the page. You really thought you could sneak that past me. You cannot seriously make a r
794.
by James_K 3y ago
Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I don't think they need to give people access to their software. That it might even be unfair to expect them to do so. But if they don't do it, they can't call themselves FOSS. It w
795.
by James_K 3y ago
So, you don't want to competition from large cloud providers, but you also want your source to be available to users, and you want to give them a guarantee that the software will not simply die once you stop maintaining it. Then releas
796.
by James_K 3y ago
> We believe in Open Source But you don't believe in it enough to do it. > I'm surprised people generally take the binary view that either Open Source with no protection or go proprietary completely Because FOSS is about com
797.
by James_K 3y ago
I don't think it is.
798.
by James_K 3y ago
> In the future. A copyright holder can’t change the artifact you are already holding. Yes, but you can literally just copy the GPL into the bottom of the FSL and you have a valid license. > The code drop of today is fully open source
799.
by James_K 3y ago
Copyright is about copying. For instance, if I buy a book, I cannot distribute copies of that book. But I can write whatever I want in the book, change any of the text in it, provided I don't then copy the modified text. They own the c
800.
by James_K 3y ago
So why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? What you're saying here is "we're putting our competitors at slightly less of a disadvantage, and that's good", so why not release under a free license an
801.
by James_K 3y ago
> I already explained elsewhere in this comment thread why. Your explanation seemed to be predicated on the idea that you would have to stick to the terms of your own licence. This isn't true. A license only describes what other peo
802.
by James_K 3y ago
This is such a niche case it's not really worth talking about, but the original devs still released it under GPL. The FSL is literally just the Apache license in this case. So you aren't arguing for the FSL, just that the original
803.
by James_K 3y ago
> Because freeloading competitors are stuck with two year old code, putting them at a disadvantage, or compelling then to invest in that old code (some of which might find its way into the original branch). This makes no sense though. If
804.
by James_K 3y ago
No license can prevent you from making alterations to your private copy of a piece of software.
805.
by James_K 3y ago
> Xapian under a hypothetical FSL would long have been able to commercialize it. I feel like you still aren't understanding what I'm saying here. Suppose a hypothetical version of the Xapian devs existed that were willing to us
806.
by James_K 3y ago
I suppose not much. So the licence does succeed in forcing software to go open source after two years, but before that, it still effectively forces the maintainers of forks to put in an equal amount of effort to the holder of the licence. T
807.
by James_K 3y ago
I feel like one of us is fundamentally misunderstanding this license. My understanding is that if I wanted to fork a piece of software, this licence would prevent me from doing so for two years. Then after those two years, I would essential
808.
by James_K 3y ago
For what it's worth, your writing is confused. For instance: > There cannot be a limbo where the rights holder prevents the flourishing of a fork out of lack of interest or fear. The entire point of this license is to prevent forks
809.
by James_K 3y ago
So, essentially, this is a closed source or source available licence. Anyone trying to develop open source with this will be stuck two years behind the official release and so it won't be worth trying. I don't get how it solves th
810.
by James_K 3y ago
string_constant<'H', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o'> Sometimes I see C++ code, and I feel deeply sad for the people that are subjected to it.

More ›