ssddanbrown

9 ms·

61.
by ssddanbrown 3y ago
Just keep in mind that Umbrel itself is not open source, since they prevent commercial use/distribution.
62.
by ssddanbrown 3y ago
> Sometimes the founders even push back and say, "but it's on github, you can read all of it, that makes it open source according to my definition!" Last year I started to take an interest in these kinds of cases and creat
63.
by ssddanbrown 3y ago
Just open to viewing? Would you consider stolen and GitHub-posted code as open source? Licenses adhering to the OSD generally ensure open viewing, open use, open modification and open distribution. Stripping that back to just viewing remove
64.
by ssddanbrown 3y ago
> Weird how it turned out that formatting my stuff like a book would be the best format as opposed to all the super cool different ways of thinking that are possible with new-gen apps. BookStack dev here. When originally building BookSta
65.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
But it explicitly shows that it's using Minio when the application is actually used? Sure, it's totally uncool to not mention Minio on their site and that's a massive shame but, as far as I'm aware, nothing in the licens
66.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Interesting case. Based upon the screenshots, it doesn't looking like they're trying to hide things though. Not like a typical fork and hide-via-rebrand. The web UI still shows Minio, and the CLI example shows the Minio copyright
67.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Congrats the on launch! I noticed you are referring to the project as open source while using the commons clause, which isn't typically considered an open source license, so I raised this via the discussions of the GitHub repo [1]. [1]
68.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
> AGPL restricts distribution. It does not restrict distribution, instead of restricts the ability to limit/restrict distribution. Quite a significant difference. Also, fundamentally, one (AGPL) is putting the freedoms of the code a
69.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Sure, it is fairly permissive as licenses go but those added restrictions fundamentally make this not open source, the use of this project is no longer fully open for use due to the restrictions you've place upon it. It might seem over
70.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Congrats on this! I noticed though that the license [1] this is provided under puts restrictions on use and therefore wouldn't typically be considered open source, at least as per the commonly regarded open source definition, but maybe
71.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
I've raised this with them previously but they were adamant their wording was correct. I have details of my conversations with them within my repo [1] where I store examples of licensing confusion. [1] https://github.com&#x2
72.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Feels and sounds like it might be sped-up just a touch, therefore making it seem unnatural?
73.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
A bit off-topic, but out of interest, I noticed your GitHub readme states the below, accompanied with a large GIF of showing someone how to press the star button: > The project is constantly improving with new changes being implemented o
74.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
#2 sounds like it would prevent manufacturers from developing or using Android forks on completely other devices so, for example, you could not sell a device with Amazon's Fire OS (Even without Google's apps, so no hindrance to Go
75.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
My monitoring needs are very simple and I've had good success with Uptime Kuma. For checking server metrics i built a simple go service [1] to expose metrics with simple rules applied so uptime kurma will notify me when issues arise (S
76.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Related recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32552134 I respect the effort to call this out. It's frustrating that people think their "growth hacking" is worth abusing systems and spamming othe
77.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Totally agree, I did not consent to receive marketing for your start-up. My email is on GitHub for serious inquiries or security concerns regarding my projects. I've recently starting calling out such companies. A couple of cases: - Di
78.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Thanks for your input here Drew, your actions and writings have been what has inspired me to call out such scenarios (Of non-OSD "Open Source" usage) when I see them.
79.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
That's lovely to hear, thank you very much!
80.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
I do see some differences between "free software" and "open source" here, Specifically that "free software" is much more common and something that could be expected to be written naturally, without understandin
81.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Article author here. My concern would be that you could use any term but, as soon as that term gains value, it would start to be abused and blurred and we'd be in the same situation. It would be a shame to effectively throw away the va
82.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Author here. Thanks for adding some context, I touch on the lack of of mention of "free software" in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32301331
83.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Article author here, I admit this is fairly specifically targeted at the term "Open Source" as that's specifically the term I believe to see misapplied most often. I wanted to write an article that I could share to provide so
84.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
I recently built this for my personal use a few weeks back. Built using Laravel, Vue, InertiaJS, Tailwind, Sqlite. The idea was to build a low-maintenance-hassle web feed reader, with a twitter-feed-style, with a simple config and no admin
85.
Show HN: A simple Twitter-feed-style web RSS reader provided as a container(github.com)
6 points by ssddanbrown 4y ago|1 comments
86.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Freedom of the code to its users vs Freedom of the users of the code
87.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
> Or is it just being able to run code on the server enough to be "full stack"? To me, "full stack" would entail having responsibility for logic on both the front-end and back-end, which Fresh does. Personally, I woul
88.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Hi Peer, to confirm again, anything below is my own non-legal-expert understanding/interpretation. So the new wording is as follows: >> 1. Clone the repo into a public GitHub repository (or fork https://github.com&#x2F
89.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
For sure, In my opinion I think this is totally fine as long as it's clearly specified in the likely first point of contact (Generally the readme on GitHub) & license file and as long as the other licenses aren't breached upon
90.
by ssddanbrown 4y ago
Yeah, I must admit, I know I've looked at using QT in the past but walked away to use something else due to the wording and mass of information.

More ›