Our great sponsors
-
This post makes it seem like only big bad megacorps like Google (and people drinking their kool-aid) would have an issue with AGPL, even though you can definitely find individuals who object to it as well. marcan for example has been vocally against AGPL on multiple occasions.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/49#issuecomment-...
-
MinIO has switched their license to AGPL (the community is not happy https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/12143). The company behind the project is now contacting all users and tells them to pay for the commercial license. They try to make the users feels insecure about the way they use the product. They don't tell you that you are violating the license, they tell you to check with your legal, etc. So most companies will finally just buy it.
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
operations-mediawiki-config
⚙️ Configuration for Wikimedia Foundation wikis. This is a mirror from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/operations/mediawiki-config/. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access for contributing.
> Configuration is just a short artifact. It's not a creative work and is therefore not copyrightable at all, whether by AGPL or otherwise.
I'm doubtful. For example https://github.com/wikimedia/operations-mediawiki-config is wikipedia's config. It is not short, and much of it is complex enough i think it would be copyrightable (ianal)
I agree though a very traditional list of key value pairs that are simple facts like where to find the db, might lack creativity to be copyrighted (ianal). But how many real deployed systems have that simple a config. More generally i would prefer that the license was less ambigious about this especially in an international context (e.g. rules are totally different in uk over what can be copyrighted)
> I'm not convinced obscurity helps against spam at all. DKIM and blocklists have done much more against email spam than any form of "security by obscurity" corporate scheme has.
Gmail et al use techniques beyond dkim that are secret. However i meant more like web spam where you can't just rely on source vouching for users. For example on wikipedia there is a feature where admins can write "code" that block patterns in edits. When used against persistent vandals, they are often secret lest they use the info to adjust behaviour. That's the type of thing i mean.
> if you are coordinating with the developers, then you have their explicit permission to temporarily withhold those changes (AGPL copyright holders can still grant exceptions to the license)
That only works if one entity holds all the copyright. Even then, does that mean forks cannot have coordinated disclosure?
