ssddanbrown

6 ms·

1.
by ssddanbrown 2mo ago
> Open Printer is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. So not open source.
2.
by ssddanbrown 3mo ago
Because the code is not provided under a free/open-source license, and therefore does not meet the requirements for the main F-droid repo.
3.
by ssddanbrown 3mo ago
> Many of the main authors of the Git source code are friends of mine and I have no intention to steal anything from anyone, only to make their great ideas more broadly useful. By working-around/subverting the terms they provided t
4.
by ssddanbrown 5mo ago
I've been using PyInfra for a while, albeit just for simple automation (Updating systems, checking certain stats) and I'm a big fan. Compared to Ansible, I found the docs, syntax and usage patterns much easier to get on with. Migh
5.
by ssddanbrown 5mo ago
I can understand that viewpoint. Ultimately though, audience/growth is not a core success metric for me, and the values/points explained in the blog post are more important. Plus there's a factor of wanting to help de-central
6.
by ssddanbrown 5mo ago
BookStack maintainer here. Just to clarify on that, the GitHub repo will continue to be updated and mirror the Codeberg repo (including release tags/code) for the foreseeable future, it's just that I might stop specifically publis
7.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
Just as a warning the licensing of Dokploy is a little complex/questionable, which I've documented here [1] and queried with the project here [2]. [1] https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/dokploy/ [2] ht
8.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
Just a warning, the license [1] specifically blocks EU use: > 3. Conditions for License Grant. You represent and warrant that You will not, access, download, install, run, deploy, integrate, modify, or otherwise use the Model, directly o
9.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
I've been sustaining myself for a couple of years now on my open source project (BookStack). Still going in a positive direction. Other than that, some that come to mind: Proxmox, Opnsense, SnipeIT, GitLab, Canonical, Codeweavers/
10.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
Ah, okay, thanks for explaining and cross-linking!
11.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
I'm not sure, maybe they don't want to take a hard stance on the issue either way (to indicate how open source is defined on HN). Dang has been receptive to input and updated (what I believed to be) misrepresenting "open sour
12.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
I would argue it is possible to run a business and be sustainable on open source, it's just harder and is not so compatible with the growth that many want. I don't have an issue with this kind of license being used where open sour
13.
by ssddanbrown 1y ago
Additionally, this submission's title was changed from "Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Today" to "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"
14.
Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source(danb.me)
122 points by ssddanbrown 1y ago|50 comments
15.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
The license used [1] would mean this very much wouldn't be widely considered open source, since the license sets limits on use and does not seem to provide open modification nor distribution. [1] https://github.com/Safe
16.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
Your readme states "MIT License - See LICENSE file for details" but there is no such license file. I've been seeing this a lot lately, did you use an LLM to generate this part of the readme? If so, was MIT a concious choice o
17.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
I looked at the page for my software you provide (at https://octabyte.io/fully-managed-open-source-services/appli... ) and noticed the "BookStack Website" button leads to a kind-of iframe version of the site w
18.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
> Fully open-source: Every line of code is transparent The client libraries look to be provided under a license [0] which many would not consider to be open source since they seem to limit redistribution: > 2. With restriction on copy
19.
Beware of Poison in the Source(danb.me)
8 points by ssddanbrown 2y ago|0 comments
20.
Common Misconceptions of the AGPL(danb.me)
1 points by ssddanbrown 2y ago|0 comments
21.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
The software is platform abstract, I've ran it on Debian & Ubuntu, RHEL & Fedora, Arch, OpenBSD and Windows systems. I stay out of system specific packaging methods though to avoid the extra maintenance burden, although communi
22.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
Thanks for sharing my project! I started building BookStack just over 9 years ago to suit a need at work, and have been improving & maintaining it since. I left full time employment three years ago and have been focusing on BookStack si
23.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
Just an advisory so folks don't get caught out, as far as I can tell the offering advertised as the "open-source version" defaults to [1] (and heavily makes use of) the Elastic license. More context here [2]. [1]: https:&#x2
24.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
This wouldn't be widely considered open source since your license puts limitations on use & distribution [1]. [1] https://github.com/trynyro/nyro-app/blob/5a5884126d83ecab89c...
25.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
The project is licensed under a Business Source License [1] which wouldn't be widely considered open source due to the limitations it's placing on use, so advertising this as open source may be misleading to many. Source available
26.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
I've added extra explanation in a discussion I've opened on the project: https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/discussions/3
27.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
I wouldn't consider this open source, the license [1] appears to put very non-open terms on the use, modification and distribution of the project. [1] https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/blob/be56ba046cb3b
28.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
Not yet open source, but there are plans to open source the stack as mentioned by the article which references this HN post from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39836745
29.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
That's generally what LGPL is. It does get a bit murky outside of standard compiled applications though. Otherwise, I think it's generally the other way around. Permissive can be used in stronger copy-left licenses, but strongly c
30.
by ssddanbrown 2y ago
Yeah, it wouldn't affect most users, but some users will be in that group. Plus it may (stupidly) raise legal term alerts for a portion of users it won't affect. As I said, is an option but one with concerns/considerations as

More ›