I’m not a bot.
Are you also scared of databases and prefer storing things in raw txt files?
Yes, actually. 😅 I can’t manage a database for more than a few weeks before I screw it up or want to easily edit something and stop using it.
I don’t think databases are bad. I think I’m too much of a fuckup to manage one.
There are several projects named zipline. I think you’re talking about this one though: https://github.com/diced/zipline
So what do they actually offer, on top of the work of creative people making music? Not much.
OK, so I left Spotify for Navidrome a while back BUT. What Spotify sells isn’t music. Spotify sells curation and recommendations. Most people aren’t music lovers that want to hunt for cool new music. They just want a pre-generated list of songs that they’ll more or less like. That’s actually kinda huge.
A recommendation engine is something I wish fediverse or open source would tackle. I’m on Navidrome now, but I’m definitely listening to way less music now—access isn’t an issue—I just haven’t had time to hunt around for new music. Investigating new bands takes time. On Spotify, you do it without even really thinking about it.
Open Source, permissive! Do what ever you want with my code!
No, not like that!
Mommy, that source available project is claiming to be Open Source™️! 👆
I only have 1 project left on GitHub. It’s a tiiiiny bit popular. Not huge, but I have a decent amount of stars on it. I know some people use it in automated work flows.
I’ve actually been thinking about how to get it off GitHub for a while now. Any tips? Ideally without breaking everyone and pissing everyone off? Or at least with minimal disruption…
Ah, yes. Healthline. I had forgotten they exist because I downranked their site in Kagi.
Also brought to you buy Healthline: Rose Quartz Crystal: Meaning, Healing, and How to Use
Music
I’ve been using Navidrome for a while now and it’s been great!
Same thought! I tried a NAS once and it was just a slower, more locked down version of a regular server I could build myself.
I’m not sure I fully understand the point of a NAS. I guess, is it supposed to be an off-the-shelf server for non technical people?
Brother! 🍻
😆😂🤣 Uuuuhh… Aaaah… I normally generate a random password and use it as my username for most services. Like even my bank.
This is because I’ve realized the username is mostly useless and is just a handle for my account. It doesn’t matter to me if my username is jsmith, meow123, or kekxbek. In fact, it’s easier if I don’t have to come up with something novel or cool. Either way it goes in my password manager, so it’s not like I have to even remember it.
I’m a real boy. I promise. Not a malicious bot.
Although… If I were a malicious bot, that’s exactly what I would say! 😲
FUTO specifically allows you to derive value from a project like this:
You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.
You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
Yes, it’s a different set of value than Open Source™ gives you. Again, they’re not claiming to provide the same value as Open Source™. (They’re also not trying to replace Open Source™.) Yes, it’s not the value that you want. Yes, that’s by design.
Do you also think, what’s the point of Google Search, Windows, WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, etc if you can’t derive any “value” from it, where “value” means Open Source™ value? Those apps are still insanely valuable to users, even if they don’t get Open Source™ value from them.
Ooooh, wait. I think I understood one of your points better now…
I done (don’t?) own the code I contribute. Technically meaning if you contribute code, and use that snippet in a commercial context, again, your in violation of the license.
So, I think you’re saying, what if you contribute some code to a source available project, maybe some boilerplate that’s the same everywhere, and then you use that same contribution in a commercial product? Then you’d be in violation of the source available license? Is that what you’re saying?
This seems like a good reason NOT to contribute to a source available project, which is totally fine. Whereas this is possible with GPL if you 100% own the code and didn’t sign a CLA.
However, not all projects are “I want everyone to pitch in and I want everyone to own the project.” There are lots of projects where 1 dude or 1 company want to retain ownership of their app and don’t need or want outside contributors. Normally, they’d probably just be closed source—maybe they might consider being source available.
(Just as long as they don’t pretend to be Open Source™, in which case fuck them.)
And I love how you glossed over all of that to get a little bit hurt at me. …
Sorry, the reason I glossed over that is because I didn’t want to get involved in that conversation. I was just trying to get the conversation back on topic. I don’t endorse the personal attacks.
So what if google also benefits?
Why are we ok with workers not getting paid for their labor? Would you still work at your job if they didn’t pay you? These companies aren’t small shops, they’re huge giants that in some cases are destroying countries. They’ll be ok if they have to share a tiny fraction of their obscene wealth with regular people.
TCP, SSL, and thousands of standard technology. Should those be charged as well?
That’s a great question. I’m not really sure actually. Btw, I don’t think Open Source™ should go away. I do think there could be a middle ground though. There should be more nuance than just 0% give away or 100% give away.
Even small utilities can contribute to people learning and adapting. … It’s such a boogy man at the cost of other people learning and benefiting from what you’ve done the same way you benfit from others.
I think you may be confusing Source Available with Closed Source. Source Available licenses don’t stop regular people from creating a community, contributing, learning, adapting, improving software. They do stop companies from making money off of your work though.
i will never understand what people hope to accomplish with these licenses
It’s simple. The point is to stop Amazon, Google, etc from selling your product.
not backed by a trusted group, it’s basically entirely pointless.
FUTO has money to fight for the FUTO license. MariaDB, Hashicorp, Sentry etc have money to fight for the BUSL license.
Here’s what I’ve found:
Hashicorp recently switch to BUSL 1.1 for Terraform (and other things), which a lot of people got pissed about… which I understand! They took all of the community’s contributions and then changed the terms on them! I get that.
However, starting a project from scratch with BUSL 1.1 and then not claiming to be Open Source™ seems totally fine to me. Contributions from the public may come or may not. That’s fine. A lot of projects don’t have a rich community of people all over the world contributing. A lot of projects are just 1 dude or 1 company doing 95% of the dev work. That’s fine. If you don’t want to contribute to a project because it’s source available instead of Open Source™ that’s tooootally fine.
The regular user, however, would still mostly get the benefits of Open Source™. The people affected would be the ones trying to make money off of your app.
People believing in community built and owned software
Btw, I’m not arguing against this. I believe Open Source™ is valuable and has its place. This post isn’t about Open Source™, despite most people on this thread trying to label the FUTO license as Open Source™ and then getting mad because it’s not actually Open Source™ even though FUTO isn’t claiming to be Open Source™. This is something else.
The main thing I’m thinking about is how to prevent Google, Facebook, etc from extracting huge amounts of wealth from small devs who get nothing in return. The obvious answer has been to release an app as closed source. That blocks out Big Tech AND users. Source Available licenses might be a third option to block out Big Tech, but not regular users.
open source washing
I definitely agree with you on this IF the company is claiming to be Open Source™, but then uses a source available license.
However, FUTO is NOT claiming to be Open Source™.
I think about it this way: either a business releases the app as close source and users can’t see anything OR the app is released as source available and users can see what’s going on. Contributions are not expected and may not even be allowed. Open Source™ wouldn’t even be considered as an option.
I didn’t even realize you could install OpenOffice anymore… it’s doesn’t seem available in the Arch repos. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Apache_OpenOffice
Oh, wow. TIL https://www.openoffice.org/
A what now? 🔎 https://cockpit-project.org/