Show Navigation
Notices by Verius (verius@community.highlandarrow.com), page 6
-
Ooh, a fix for Qt being old ass C++:Β http://www.copperspice. com/index.html
-
Hmm, seems Steam has a bit of a datetime bug with some reviews. "POSTED: 23 OCTOBER, 1773"
-
It's amusing to see the argument of "those people who don't like poltics in their foss like the GNU kind comm guidelines which are political because they contain talk about free and nonfree software". Err, it's one thing for GNU guidelines to contain references to the mission of GNU. It's another thing for politics from outside software development to be shoehorned in. Now if OpenBSD adopts those GNU guidelines there may be a point but I don't see that happening witjout adaptation to OpenBSD culture at the very least.Β
-
@maiyannah @bob @sina@pl.sina.moe Easy to run that is, not easy to maintain.
-
Apparently it takes a radical to be moderate http://lists.gnu .org/archive/html/info-gnu/2018-10/msg00001.html
-
@bob It isn't indeed. But my point is that what Mongo has adopted isn't Commons Clause but SSPL, an entirely different beast though it's intended to solve the same "problem" for its creators.
-
@bob Err, are you mixing up Mongo and RedisLab's redis modules? Cause Mongo isn't going closed source, it's going "so open you can't compete with us"-source. SSPL isn't Commons Clause.
-
@maiyannah Eh, I like to hate on Mongo as well but to be fair there are cases where it's actually the right tool for the job. The big problem with Mongo (and NoSQL in general) is that people seem to be really bad at recognizing where it's the best choice and where it isn't. And to be frank I can't think of a situation where I'd say without hesitation that Mongo is the right choice. I can think of situations where a relational database might no longer suffice (very write heavy large scale applications) but even in such situations the most positive of Mongo I'll get is "include it in your thorough investigation of alternatives based on your particular need".
-
@maiyannah @ninjawedding You lose the ability to target ads that way and targeted ads fetch rather a lot more than generic ads based on the content of a video. And that's on top of a rather substantial bill for materials and electricity which they currently do not have. And how many people really block ads? And how much of the really interesting demographics intersect with the ad blocking group? Consider that from a monetization perspective kids are probably one of the most interesting groups (they have money or can cajole parents into buying something and don't yet have optimal impulse control) but kids aren't likely to install an ad blocker themselves.
-
@maiyannah Fair enough.
-
It will be interesting to see how that Mongo SSPL thing is going to play out with regard to forks. Mongo Inc is now basically trying to destroy the business of it's competitors in the hosted Mongo space. But obviously those competitors will not upgrade to a version with the SSPL. So they're stuck in a bit of a rough spot where if Mongo Inc continues to drive Mongo development eventually they'll be stuck with old code. So it makes much sense for them to band together and fork Mongo to continue development of a version they can use. If the SSPL is going to be regarded as a non-FOSS license (sure looks that way the way discussions are going) it's quite likely that outside contributions will move into the fork creating a very viable hostile fork that could kill Mongo Inc's control of Mongo. We've seen scenario's similar to this a lot of times, it usually ends badly for the company.
-
@maiyannah I've read the PDF with the diff between the AGPL and the SSPL. I disagree that it constrains distribution, I see it more as restricting how you can use the program. But that may be a matter of how you interpret offering a service over the network. The way I read it that's more of an aspect of usage rather than distribution but I could imagine you see that as an aspect of distribution. In any case after reading the diff I'm even more convinced that this isn't a FOSS license. The thing is, section 2 talks about affirming (not granting) your right to use the software but they add a "subject to section 13". That's clearly a usage restriction which is a no-no FOSS-wise.
-
@maiyannah Except I'm using literally the most common browser (Chrome) on a desktop.
-
The inability of QVitter to allow newlines in my posts continues to be one of the most annoying parts of it.
-
@maiyannah It's not quite that simple. The four freedoms are (according to the FSF) "
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."Β Β Which freedom is infringed? Freedom 1, 2 and 3 don't seem to be impacted. That leaves freedom 0 but the license isn't so much restricting your ability to run the program as it's to offer access to others to run the program. So I'm curious what your argument for the violation of the four freedoms is. (Which is not to say that I necessarily disagree, I'm genuinely curious whether there's an argument straight from the fundamental philosophy of free software here)
-
@maiyannah I find that companies doing something out of principled belief are pretty rare, especially big fancy tech wannabe-unicorns. Still, it's going to be interesting at least whether this license will be used by other organizations as well. Or, even better, someone forks Mongo _with this license_, makes it much better and effectively prevents Mongo Inc from using it because it would kill their own business model. :P (Now there's something you can't do with the FSF)
-
The idea that Mongo doesn't have to play by the terms of the license they write once again demonstrates the dangers of copyright assignment to a company.
-
Looking at arguments why this isn't FOSS the most promising one seems to be article 9 of the OSI definition and DSFG (turns out those are pretty much the same). "9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software - The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software." But you could also argue that they're only forcing something on somewhat linked software so it's in the same vein as the GPL.
-
So it seems Mongo are trying to do something similar to the Commons Clause except that they're smart enough to make a license that quite arguably is still FOSS (it's not officially judged yet but their arguments as to why it is still FOSS seem valid). Roughly their license says that if you offer something that effectively resells Mongo as a service you need to supply the proprietary bits of that service as well. (URL broken up because of the usual pA bug around posting those) https://www. mongodb. com /licensing/server-side-public-license/faq
-
Ayricle on the internet "Why do we say Mastodon instead of Fediverse?". Because you're blocking most on the non-masto nodes. I'll go get my coat.
Verius
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the