mrwyz

4 ms·

1.
by mrwyz 2y ago
Exhibit B, C: https://automattic.com/2024/09/25/open-source-trademarks-wp-... Put some money on those 0% odds.
2.
by mrwyz 2y ago
The law is not black-and-white. Absolutes like "Everyone can use your Trademark to identify the thing" don't fit in this context. Your reliance on Wikipedia to summarize a doctrine further demonstrates you don't have a f
3.
by mrwyz 2y ago
That's not how U.S. trademark law works.
4.
by mrwyz 2y ago
To me, it seems they have been using the mark to describe a product and the policy says clearly: > but they cannot use them as part of a product I mean, just go to wpengine.com and look at the first menu item: Products --> WordPress H
5.
by mrwyz 2y ago
I'm hopeful Automattic will win this one; WP Engine repackages WordPress and delivers it as a service. Fine. Software license allows for that. That does not give them the right to describe their service as "[the] Most Trusted Word
6.
by mrwyz 2y ago
Certainly. MIT/BSD more or less says: steal away (but retain this license notice). In some cases that's desirable.
7.
by mrwyz 2y ago
Only if you think taking the work of others and profiting from it without contributing anything back is fine.
8.
by mrwyz 2y ago
BSD/MIT allows you to take code without any obligation to contribute back.
9.
by mrwyz 2y ago
MIT/BSD and similar ones.
10.
by mrwyz 2y ago
The AGPL is great, even for business. I make a living from AGPL software. Lots of people generally don't like it, because AGPL was not written to please the largest number of developers, but rather to protect the basic software freedom
11.
by mrwyz 2y ago
I handle this by redirecting all questions (anything that isn't a feature request or a bug report) to the project's community forum (hosted on discourse). Then I wrote and deployed https://github.com/pierotofy&#x2F
12.
by mrwyz 2y ago
Excellent, good for them! I don't understand why other governments don't follow suit, or why people are opposed to it. There might be some valid cons about requiring the use of FOSS (e.g. LibreOffice vs MS Office), but the part ab
13.
Show HN: Voluntarily add warning labels to social media websites(github.com)
27 points by mrwyz 2y ago|6 comments
14.
by mrwyz 2y ago
Not open source. Misleading title.
15.
by mrwyz 2y ago
The app looks very cool, but you might have a licensing issue; Meta's NLLB models are CC-BY-NC 4.0 (non-commercial use only). I could recommend checking out the OPUS-NLP models, which are truly open.
16.
Group behind Columbia University protests received millions(dailymail.co.uk)
3 points by mrwyz 2y ago|10 comments
17.
by mrwyz 2y ago
Cool, but not touching this; no license and requires Inria's proprietary rasterizer. People should stop basing all of this new research on proprietary software, when we have open source implementations [1][2]. [1] gsplat: https:/
18.
by mrwyz 2y ago
"never apply". https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/
19.
Show HN: WebODM Drone Mapping Software(webodm.net)
2 points by mrwyz 2y ago|0 comments
20.
OpenSplat – 3D gaussian splatting in C++ with CPU and GPU support(github.com)
37 points by mrwyz 3y ago|2 comments