jraph

45 ms·

451.
by jraph 1y ago
These distros package AGPL software, but are these AGPL packages part of the base install (I don't think so), and does Amazon use this software on production?
452.
by jraph 1y ago
> MIT gives less freedom to the user. No. Someone can use some MIT licensed software for any purpose and can strictly do anything with it that the GPL would allow. Just as free. However, I do agree that permissive licenses like the MIT a
453.
by jraph 1y ago
What you call puritanism is a fight for user software freedom to be recognized as a fundamental right. Your phrasing is malicious. It waves off a 40 year fight from many reasonable people as extreme and ridiculous, or as religious-like. Did
454.
by jraph 1y ago
> But because AGPL doesn’t dig into the definition of "access", simply defining it as “users interacting with it remotely through a computer network”, nor define clear boundaries for how the "contagious" part of GPLv3
455.
by jraph 1y ago
> Google could get around these issues by modding an AGPL project to run on their proprietary hardware that no one has access to and then simply releasing the modified source code. Well I guess they could today, I don't see the AGPL
456.
by jraph 1y ago
I don't follow. GPL and MIT fully fulfill the exigences of the free software definition, there's no compromise here. Choosing between GPL and MIT may involve compromises, but we are talking about something else, you are moving the
457.
by jraph 1y ago
> legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available If I understand correctly what you say, this is one of the main concerns with the SSPL because of the following [1]: >
458.
by jraph 1y ago
> but the biggest tech companies don’t care when it comes to repackaging and reselling it as a service. If I'm not mistaken, Apple would rather avoid touching anything GPLv3 with a ten foot pole. They are among the biggest tech comp
459.
by jraph 1y ago
If you base your opinions on compromises and always making tradeoffs on your core values, you've lost your direction. What do we do now? > It's free for humans and 99.999% of businesses Nope. "Free" has specific meani
460.
by jraph 1y ago
The DFSG and the OSD are the same text, but the OSI and the Debian project interpret it differently, and this difference is important. Debian (and most other distributions, btw), for the most part (or entirely, I suppose), agrees with the F
461.
by jraph 1y ago
The open source initiative was initially about hiding the political and philosophical aspects behind the free software movement (that's the second part of your (1)). (hence the "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software&qu
462.
by jraph 1y ago
> There is this blind trust in open source model In my case, it's not about any open source model, it's about software freedom. What's unhealthy is non-free software, and there's nothing extreme in having this opinion
463.
by jraph 1y ago
> Very little is obsolete that fast Isn't two years of security patch lag a big deal?
464.
by jraph 1y ago
Should probably be called "open source with a two year delay", or "open source in two years". Or "open source when obsolete" because that's what it is, fundamentally. Of course, it sells less and makes it
465.
by jraph 1y ago
GraalVM indeed do wonders wrt startup times and in providing a single binary you can call.
466.
by jraph 1y ago
It's nothing like donations: people pay these extensions / apps like any other paid software. That's my point, actually. In XWiki's case, we know it's not perceived like "I could be having it for free but I&#x2
467.
by jraph 1y ago
Like many comments here, I disagree with this article. Notably, I don't necessarily remember which colors are used by my code editors off the top of my head, but you can be damn sure that if the smallest thing is different tomorrow, I
468.
by jraph 1y ago
> It's not a viable business model. > You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0 It is a viable business model. At X
469.
by jraph 1y ago
Ah! Got it, thanks.
470.
by jraph 1y ago
It's not an isolated event, German states are pretty serious about this. They are funding openDesk [1], a fully open source office and collaboration suite aiming to replace solution likes Google Drive and Office 365 with sovereign solu
471.
by jraph 1y ago
More like flexitarians maybe.
472.
by jraph 1y ago
> Arch users are the vegans of the Linux world. Why would Arch be in that position?
473.
by jraph 1y ago
Me too, since 2016. I had issues with Microsoft, but it has been otherwise flawless.
474.
by jraph 1y ago
I've been procrastinating a trivial fix for years, thanks for having listed the commands to run to format and send the patch, that might help me find my way out from procrastination because this is exactly what's been blocking me.
475.
by jraph 1y ago
Why not also do the sending? Deliverability concerns?
476.
by jraph 1y ago
Yep. Model checking is for checking that your design is sound, basically, not at all the implementation. For the implementation, you can use certified compilers like CompCert [1], but: - you still have to show your code is correct - there a
477.
by jraph 1y ago
There's a place for pushing strong philosophical points. But that's not what this comment is. This comment is practical advice, and I think it misses the point. "Try to avoid relying on proprietary software" is strong. &
478.
by jraph 1y ago
Watch out. You are explaining serious stuff under a comment that was essentially "watch out, your parent comment was sarcasm".
479.
by jraph 1y ago
At least you (or your employer) won't have to pay a shit ton of money for AI subscriptions so you remain productive after the AI bubble bursts.
480.
by jraph 1y ago
Take the "seahorse sticker or emoji-style image" part. It's the exact same words. It is quite specific phrasing. There's no other result on the web for this. It's not only this part, the whole thing feels very simil

More ›