cic48

4 ms·

1.
by cic48 6y ago
Chris DiBona is paid to care about exactly this issue. Compliance is his job description and AGPL policy companywide is comfortably in that portfolio. That you disagree with him does not indict Google nor create an alternative universe wher
2.
by cic48 6y ago
The error is using a pejorative term of FUD to identify uncertainties that are routine in every legal review ever performed. What you’re saying is you have a different risk assessment for your business and you’d take the advice and proceed
3.
by cic48 6y ago
Free as in beer with the expectation of Venmo, is it? Joke aside, given Stallman’s writings about large businesses and their practices, characterizing a policy document as a “tirade” is a strange position. They’re not exactly buying airtime
4.
by cic48 6y ago
Not only possible, it’s a fact. Borg executables make many assumptions about available runtime services and cannot operate in their absence. It’s probably impossible to derive and operate the same artifact Google is running without a comple
5.
by cic48 6y ago
Perhaps people would listen more readily if you didn’t ascribe malevolent falsehoods to routine risk management and identified any idea other than your own as intellectually deficient. There are reasons and advantages to monorepos in some c
6.
by cic48 6y ago
I’ve taken AGPL through two FAANG reviews. Both arrived at the same very-much-not-FUD legal conclusion. Paragraph 1 of section 13 requires modifications to be disclosed and source code for them to be offered to remote users. The license use