VoxPelli

“it's just a lookalike phishing link”

In a way, yes, but embedded in a thick thick layer of social engineering

Rust was pretty much created to help solve security issues in browsers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)#20...

Servo has a distinct design goal that sets it apart from its predecessor within Mozilla and has already had offsprings that has made its way directly into Firefox.

Its purpose is not to reinvent everything. It’s not a hype project.

Servo makes a whole lot more sense: https://servo.org/

Not only is Firefox using it for their CSS engine but Mozilla created Rust to build Servo and sadly only the CSS engine and maybe some other parts is what they kept around when they offloaded Rust.

“the Rust ecosystem around browsers is growing” – in the beginning pretty much 100% of the ecosystem around Rust was browser oriented

Thankfully Servo is picking up speed again and is a great project to help support with some donations etc: https://servo.org/

Firefox was special in that Mozilla created Rust to build Servo and then backported parts of Servo to Firefox and ultimately stopped building Servo.

Thankfully Servo has picked up speed again and if one wants a Rust based browser engine what better choice than the one the language was built to enable?

https://servo.org/

Main positive with bunny.net:

Its European rather than from USA so its less dependent on that orange guy in that white/golden house

Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here?

I remember when I was part of procuring an analytics tool for a previous employer and they had a similar clause that would essentially have banned us from building any in-house analytics while we were bound by that contract.

We didn't sign.

This goes for publicly traded companies much more than privately owned ones.

GOG is now becoming private like Valve rather than publicly traded.

If the implementation gets it wrong that can also be a sign of ambiguity in the protocol / standard and as such result in clarifications and an overall more well specified protocol

sudo-rs itself is not a bad idea, Canonical’s premature shipping of it in Ubuntu was the bad idea. sudo-rs was transparent with how far it had gotten in compatibility and feature parity

Yeah, same here :/

If one were to make a iPhone 17 Pro Mini as thick as the iPhone 4 then it would:

- Likely still weigh less than a Pro Max - Have a battery with a capacity larger than the Pro Max - Have the pro cameras stick out about as much as they did on the iPhone 6

And it would feel as robust and solid as an iPhone 4 – my favorite iPhone so far

Check eg. the Mudita Kompakt: https://store.mudita.com/store/mudita-kompakt-global

And the Light Phone 3: https://www.thelightphone.com/lightiii

"the trade-offs in battery life and camera quality are too significant" - a small but thicker phone would have no trouble with battery life and could for sure have the same good cameras as larger phones – and could possibly even ditch the camera bump if it just made the entire phone as thick as the camera bump to fit a larger battery.

(After all, easiest way to increase battery size is to increase the smallest dimension. Add 1mm to a 4-4.5mm thick battery and you'll increase the battery size by 22-25%. Make the iPhone 13 Mini as thick as its camera bump and you would probably add ≈2.4mm, which would make the battery 60% larger)

The Mudita Kompakt (https://store.mudita.com/store/mudita-kompakt-global) is a 4.3” e-ink Android based phone that's about the size of an iPhone Mini.

It doesn't have the Google Play Store but one can sideload Android apps onto it

Readwise Reader should be a great option

Readwise Reader, paid service from a bootstrapped company, kind of ensures it won’t randomly kill the product

Also: They are users of their own product

He apparently is on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/ericmigi.com/post/3lgr5paghx22u

Completely agree! Felt like such a refresh right up until the suggestions to follow on the Musk platform – it’s basically the same as suggesting to follow on Truth Social nowadays, only that Musk has more money than Trump could ever dream off

+1 on Bluesky, either that or Mastodon, so odd to still have to use a highly political and controversial platform like Musk’s Twitter to follow people and projects like these.

Relying on Twitter is a liability, not a feature :/

Not really the same plug and play experience as a Steam Deck offers though.

I personally wish that Framework works with Valve to release a version of Steam OS for their motherboards, so one can retrofit an old Framework laptop motherboard as a TV console.

Opened an issue to see if this could maybe be documented on the fair.io website: https://github.com/fairsource/fair.io/issues/58

So you have Contributor License Agreements that enable you to relicense to something like GPL or MIT whenever you want to?

Because AGPL itself can not be relicensed and it even needed special wording when created to become GPL-compliant.

Since you’re a startup I believe that you use AGPL to achieve the “fair source” idea (https://fair.io/) – where you yourself can provide a hosted service without providing all your source code while hoping others won’t be as they will need to provide all theirs.

In simplified terms: It’s an anti-AWS defense. Helping you avoid being outcompeted by a big cloud vendor using your project without paying anything for it.

And AGPL is a poor “fair source” license, especially as it was never designed to be a “fair source” license but also since it doesn’t give the impression of “fair source” but rather the impression of “open source”, giving an almost deceptive and dishonest look.

And since AGPL is perpetual, unlike eg BSL and FSL, one is stuck with the “fair source” license forever, rather than having it be converted into a mainstream OSS license over time. It can eg make it hard for someone else to eventually, if your company goes away and the project gets abandoned (which is sadly the most likely outcome of most startups), pick up the project and build a company around that while using similar “fair source” principles like you.

If you are doing like what SourceHut is doing (https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-...) and going all in on AGPL and playing by its rules yourself as well and treating it as “open source” rather than “fair source”, then well done!

I still would likely want to avoid the legalese complexity of AGPL in my stack though and try to generally stick to permissive licenses and the occasional GPL-licensed projects, like eg Linux. And eg Google has similar guidelines when using OSS-code internally.

Absolutely not.

I want to keep the legalese in my setups at a manageable level, avoid needless lock-ins (AGPL is one of the least compatible licenses out there, code from an AGPL project can only ever be used in another AGPL project) and have it be clear when I contribute to a proprietary project in disguise (which most startup AGPL projects are, thanks to CLA:s) and when I contribute to an actual OSS project

AGPL is often used by startups to achieve the effect of “fair source” licenses while still being able to claim to be fully OSS.

AGPL is a poor “fair source” license and a controversial OSS license.

AGPL in “fair source” projects are always paired with Contributor License Agreements etc that ensures the company behind it owns all the rights to the project and can re-license it however they want without having to abide by AGPL themselves. Which is not in the spirit of OSS at all. And if the company goes out of business, then AGPL makes it really hard for anyone else to eventually pick up and continue on the “fair source” business model of the project.

Using a proper “fair source” license like the Business Source License or the Functional Source License will make for a better and more honest “fair source” phase of the project and both those licenses will resolve to non-controversial OSS licenses over time.

So:

- Is “fair source” in the spirit of “open source”? No

- Is AGPL an “open source” license? Yes

- Is AGPL often used to OSS-wash “fair source” projects? Yes

- Are all AGPL projects “fair source” projects? No, there exists proper OSS-projects with AGPL licenses

- Is AGPL in startup projects almost always paired with CLA:s that makes the startup play by different rules than everyone else? Yes

- Is it more in the spirit of “open source” or “fair source” to have the startup play by different rules than everyone else? In the spirit of “fair source”

- Is AGPL a good choice for “fair source” projects? No, it perpetuates the different rules between the startup and the community forever, even after the startup has ceased to exist, whereas proper “fair source” licenses convert to less extreme OSS licenses over time

Edit: The only company that I know that does an AGPL project in an “open source” spirit rather than a “fair source” spirit is Sourcehut: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-...

The AGPL license is a no-go for me.

While it’s technically true that it’s an OSI license it’s mostly used to scare away competing cloud vendors from hosting the software, which isn’t in spirit of OSS.

Have you looked into the more modern choices?

Like the Business Source License that MariaDB created and uses or the Functional Source License that Sentry created as an improvement over the Business Source License? https://fsl.software/

Both those licenses have a fair source phase that automatically resolves into an open source phase over time.

Thus one gets the best of two worlds: An honest descriptive license for protecting one’s business model + a normal permissive OSS license that ensures longevity and prevents lock-in.

We need to start treating “non-commercial” as the ambivalent term that it is.

Eg: All “non-profit” and “personal” use likely isn’t necessarily “non-commercial”, but those two can be easily identified based on who it is that makes use of the software.

So what is the definition of “non-commercial”? Nothing in itself. Eg. Creative Commons elaborates a lot on what it means in that context: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...

Eg the Business Source License and the Functional Source License makes it always available for non-commercial use

It’s been reported by Little Snitch as well: https://obdev.at/blog/should-i-upgrade-to-macos-sequoia-part...