ezekg

27 ms·

511.
by ezekg 2y ago
Not just FSL. There's also the Fair Core License [0], the Business Source License [1], and we're open to adding more given they abide by the Fair Source Definition. We're just getting started. [0]: https://fcl.dev
512.
by ezekg 2y ago
> No cloud provider even offers a hosted version of Sentry, so it's not like that's an issue for their business. https://cra.mr/the-busl-factor
513.
by ezekg 2y ago
Exactly. The problem with "Source Available" is that it has no real definition and it conveys no user freedoms outside of the (loose) freedom to read the source code, which is why the term has never taken off with anybody. It&#x27
514.
by ezekg 2y ago
This is the reason why I believe Fair Core [0] is superior to open core, because the former eventually open sources everything, while the latter never open sources the useful parts. That's actually one of the main reasons I relicensed
515.
by ezekg 2y ago
In addition, underneath the definition, we touch on that even more: > The intention is for the first point to be a bright line, and for the second to invite exploration. We expect Fair Source licenses to emerge and evolve and shake out
516.
by ezekg 2y ago
Sure, but the same can be said for the 4-year delay, too. I don't really see a big difference, and I'm using the FCL [0] which is also 2-year DOSP. If the author is no longer improving the product in 2-year cycles, they deserve to
517.
by ezekg 2y ago
When we really think about it, what's the real fear behind 2-year vs 4-year DOSP? Is it that users will choose the 2-year OSS version over the latest version, or that it encourages more viable competition? The former sounds like a valu
518.
by ezekg 2y ago
Doing a black hole would be pretty neat if it looked like Interstellar. Lots of possibilities i.r.t. color.
519.
by ezekg 2y ago
I'd love to chat sometime (or at least read your thoughts) about why you're anti-DOSP.
520.
The Future of Open Source(blog.gitbutler.com)
10 points by ezekg 2y ago|7 comments
521.
by ezekg 2y ago
We had some pretty detailed discussion that you missed out on: https://github.com/fairsource/fair.io/issues/14#issuecomment... . I'm sure SUL would have been right there with ELv2 since it's derived
522.
by ezekg 2y ago
I wish you would have been more involved in the discussions [0] [1] leading up to this. I know you were invited to participate, since Chad shared your thoughts a few times via proxy. Regarding your main points: 1. I'm on the governance
523.
by ezekg 2y ago
I think "psuedo-open-source" and "close to Open Source" convey something vastly different. The former implies, by definition, that it's fake Open Source, i.e. what most would call "open-washing." Fair So
524.
by ezekg 2y ago
The problem with "source-available" is that it has no real definition and it conveys no user freedoms at all outside of the loose freedom to read the source code, which is why the term has never taken off with anybody. It's w
525.
by ezekg 2y ago
> don't convince yourself for a second that you're putting the community before yourself. In some ways, I'm putting the sustainability of my business above user freedom, yes, but in other ways I put user freedom above sust
526.
by ezekg 2y ago
> Anyone that isn't in it for the money won't give your product a second look. I think Sentry in particular has proven that you're wrong here. They have over 10k users self-hosting their software under a Fair Source licens
527.
by ezekg 2y ago
This is a false dichotomy. You assert that because a company wants to share its source code that it's also soliciting free work. Personally, I’ve never asked for free work. I don’t want free work. I actually don’t even care if anybody
528.
by ezekg 2y ago
> They're not able to fully modify the program for their use-case, or create a superior version to what is provided. What license are you reading? Let's not jump to conclusions. The FCL allows you to read, use, modify, and redi
529.
Keygen is now Fair Source(keygen.sh)
5 points by ezekg 2y ago|2 comments
530.
Ask HN: Have you experienced burn in with your OLED monitor?
3 points by ezekg 2y ago|1 comments
531.
by ezekg 2y ago
inconshreveable did it with ngrok: https://ngrok.io
532.
by ezekg 2y ago
I have this in my office. My wife got it for me years back. One of my favorite things to flip through when I need some branding inspiration.
533.
by ezekg 2y ago
This is one of the reasons I personally went fair source/source-available. I was already sharing my code with my biggest customers via escrow, so I thought I'd just simplify and share with everybody and give everyone the same bene
534.
by ezekg 2y ago
I think a big value prop is that it reduces vendor lock-in, especially when depending on a new company. If the company fails, you can self-host and even fork. You can also choose to self-host for compliance reasons if your sector doesn&#x27
535.
by ezekg 2y ago
Or just use git: git checkout `git rev-list -n 1 --before='2 years ago' master` and if the license is FSL, you're g2g.
536.
by ezekg 2y ago
To add: the problem with the BUSL was that every variation of the BUSL was effectively its own license. The FSL reins that in so that a company's legal department could approve FSL full-scale, allowing all FSL projects to be used. The
537.
by ezekg 2y ago
> Surely "source available" is the wrong term to label the license with. There's a new term coming very soon, "Fair Source." :) See: https://fair.io
538.
Acquire.com Biannual Acquisition Multiples Report (Jan 2024)(blog.acquire.com)
1 points by ezekg 2y ago|0 comments
539.
by ezekg 2y ago
When did they recently try to change licenses? I must have missed that. I don't see any PRs or issues related to a license change, aside from their change from MIT to AGPL 4 years ago.
540.
by ezekg 2y ago
I don't think there's a formal spec for the otpauth URI yet [0], even if there is a spec by Google [1], so this may just come down to MS adding some incompatibility to force usage of their authenticator, or the app using some pr

More ›