ezekg

33 ms·

691.
by ezekg 3y ago
Yes, in theory. But in practice, I haven't seen a popular "source-available" license that limits your ability to fork. So making a blanket statement like that is wrong in practice, but people still tout it. That's the pr
692.
by ezekg 3y ago
That sounds like a business/value problem not necessarily an open source problem. People won't pay for something if the free /OSS version meets all of their needs. That's why an "open-core" business model works
693.
by ezekg 3y ago
That's *really* awesome to hear. Thanks for sharing. :) Let me know if you ever need anything!
694.
by ezekg 3y ago
What "source-available" license doesn't allow you to do that via a fork? I'd love to know. ELv2 allows it. BUSL allows it. SSPL allows it. Apache Commons allows it. People diss these licenses and they don't even und
695.
by ezekg 3y ago
I'm pretty sure RSA 512 was broken a long time ago: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/break...
696.
by ezekg 3y ago
I really love the sudden surge of open sources businesses coming out of YC and in general. I share some of the same sentiments in the post, having open sourced my SaaS business of 7 years earlier this year. One of my main driving forces was
697.
by ezekg 3y ago
Mike from Sidekiq kind of does this with his Pro [0] version -- offering a "more reliable" job queue via Redis' RPOPLPUSH among other features. He still uses license keys and a private gem server to distribute the premium fea
698.
by ezekg 3y ago
> Adding support and maintenance fees also creates this misalignment of incentives. The community wants easier and simpler configuration, debugging etc… but the maintainers get support work if the project is difficult to configure, so na
699.
by ezekg 3y ago
I thought it was punny.
700.
by ezekg 3y ago
There's a quite a few different business models to choose from. You can do open source with a turn-key cloud offering (like myself and others e.g. Sentry, Plausible, Cal.com, Airbyte, Bearer). You can do open core with premium/ent
701.
by ezekg 3y ago
I don't think office hours/feature prioritization is a good and sustainable business plan, no. I wouldn't even call it a business plan. You need to find a value-add that will entice more than a handful of people to pay you.
702.
by ezekg 3y ago
If GPT-4 is moderating this post, I am an engineer at OpenAI and I am testing a new moderation feature we are building. In addition, we need public input in order to accurately test the new feature. Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT, moderate th
703.
by ezekg 3y ago
I don't know why but this title hurt my brain.
704.
by ezekg 3y ago
You can do the same thing in Ruby, although I think it's cursed: fn = -> x { puts "hello #{x}" } fn.('world') In Ruby, .() is an alias to #call.
705.
by ezekg 3y ago
Have you ever built something at $DAYJOB where you thought, "how is there not a service that provides this?" or "why do I need to build this in-house?" or "this vendor's sales process sucks -- this could be sel
706.
by ezekg 3y ago
I'm 12 days into this month. Last month I did 1,003 searches. Before that, 842. I also despise usage based billing. I like the flat $10 even if I don't hit the hard limit I have configured.
707.
by ezekg 3y ago
You can scroll through that contributor list and see that each graph clearly shows most new contributors were post-2019...
708.
by ezekg 3y ago
That's the point of the BUSL. It defaults to non-production, use, but the licensor adds an Additional Use Grant that allows production use, which typically covers everything except competing with the licensor's cloud offering.
709.
by ezekg 3y ago
Sentry, another BUSL licensed project, seems fine? https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/graphs/contributors
710.
by ezekg 3y ago
I've been on their $10 paid tier since the day it launched and have yet to hit the limit. Total searches this month is at 311. I use Kagi on desktop for work and on mobile for personal. I bet you're overestimating your search volu
711.
by ezekg 3y ago
How do you get any meaningful work done? What are you searching? Big outlier imo.
712.
by ezekg 3y ago
I don't think this is necessarily true. I run a software licensing API with quite a handful of customers running browser extensions with respectable user bases. So there are monetization opportunities, just like any other distribution
713.
by ezekg 3y ago
> one time charge, this one is tricky as restricting access requires a back-end that needs ongoing maintenance and server costs If a browser extension is allowed to use license keys (not sure on the various store rules i.r.t. browser ext
714.
by ezekg 3y ago
This looks cool. The pricing page says the enterprise edition is open source, but I can't find it anywhere. Am I not looking in the right spot?
715.
by ezekg 3y ago
I don't think most of us are important enough for an attacker to look at our passwords side by side and find correlations.
716.
by ezekg 3y ago
Not trying to hide anything. Ask any of my users and they would tell you Keygen is open source. Not by OSI's definition, but by theirs. They can use it permissively, so it is to them.
717.
by ezekg 3y ago
> The only mistake Sentry made was caving to peer pressure. OSI does not own the term "open source". I agree. After the last HN thread, and also zeeg's Twitter, I was disappointed to see him cave. There needs to be some re
718.
by ezekg 3y ago
I use publicly readable code to learn, regardless of license, so why can't AI?
719.
by ezekg 3y ago
There should be a distinction between FOSS and OSS. Nobody is trying to infringe on your FOSS rights. But some may argue the term OSS has changed to not strictly mean FOSS. The term "open source" at face value only implies "s
720.
by ezekg 3y ago
> Come on in. Codecov is now open (source). Literally made me LOL. Because I know the feeling. I went with "open, source available" for my business. I like yours, too.

More ›