havaker

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by havaker 2y ago

   The license choice is explained with the following: > [...] we accommodate the business need for proprietary kernel modules. Unlike GPL, the MPL permits the linking of MPL-covered files with proprietary code. Glancing at the readme, it a
2. 2.▲
   by havaker 2y ago

   Open source usually means that you are able to modify and redistribute the software in question freely. However between open and closed, there is another class - source-available software. From its wikipedia page: > Any software is sourc
3. 3.▲
   by havaker 3y ago

   Built-in fetching of http resources and reading files from the filesystem[1] combined with turing-completeness are features that I wasn't expecting from a configuration language. I wonder if the complexity this brings is justified. 1: