starshipwinepineapple

joined 4 months ago
[–] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No. I said even if they don't maliciously comply with the license [by making the open sourced code unusable without the backend code or some other means outside of scope of this conversation] then they can charge for it.

The malicous part is in brackets in the above paragraph. The license is an OSI approved license that allows commercialization, it would be stupid for me to call that malicious.

[–] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Nothing. The context of this comment thread is "fuck corporations" and then proposing AGPL to solve that. I am merely pointing out that if their goal is to have a non-commercial license then AGPL doesn't solve that, which is why i mention they can charge for their services with AGPL.

[–] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Who hurt you!?

[–] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it's being run on a server.

In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don't maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.

As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don't think is really a barrier to use for documentation.

[–] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It would be much more customer and developer friendly to allow linking a service portal instead of providing a phone number. I would go insane if a user called me directly every time one of my projects had a bug or some perceived (non)issue. No, that's not how this works.

Kebab or snake for ease of parsing through them.

Either i wasn't clear or you are replying to the wrong person, but i am in support of foss projects asking for donations in a reasonable manor such as this

[–] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There is an option to disable it permanently. Otherwise it is once a year and easily dismissed

It's once per year, easily dismissed, and can be permanently disabled. Seems entirely reasonable for a piece of free software that someone would use everyday

Never. For the most part i haven't had a question that hasn't already asked or that couldn't be answered from reading the docs or some other source. For the cases i get stuck i ask the question to a more focused group

My company ones are always super obvious. One of the best ones though was on valentines day spoofing a valentines ecard from a coworker in your organization

And if you want a private repo, you can also use gitlab and point to custom domain with gitlab pages or cloudflare pages.

view more: ‹ prev next ›