zwaps

Nobody said anything like this. I love hanging out in mixed groups.

However, and this may shock you, I also love hanging out in non mixed groups. And they are not the same.

Interesting product idea. For technical knowledge I don’t see this working at all, maybe for organizational knowledge?

Btw for larger European companies I think you will have a hard time due to trade secrets and privacy

If a competitor model is conspicuously absent, it is likely better

If you want this in numbers check the nolima benchmark

If he is in the EU he would be right

Pretty successful at invoking the emotion rage

Maybe people just like it?

I can’t stand the underroasted garbage that is peddled as coffee nowadays. Sour with no body, taste, or substance!

Good Italian coffee is perfect as it is.

You are allowed to like whatever you want, even if it is bodyless, tastesless and oversour bean water in which you invariably dump loads of milk in order to taste it even less.

We are just saying it is equivalent and easier to just drink tea and steep it for only 30 seconds.

I hate modern coffee. It tastes like sour water, or at best like tea.

It tastes nothing like good coffee, the properties of which we already figured out long ago eg. in a good Italian espresso.

And then these people dump all aggregates of milk in their 19ml of white roasted coffee, only to guarantee that they do not taste any coffee at all.

Here is a hint: If you do not like coffee, you are allowed not to drink it!

Save the rest of us from your unroasted, watery garbage.

Essentially yes. While weak copyleft would be fine for the use cases i have seen, the distinction and the licenses have yet to be tested in a EU court.

As a a consequence there are a numbers of legal options on the matter and as a consequence to that, it is a very hard no from most compliance deps i have seen

I find this interesting. In your view, who should produce oss and under what circumstances? Is sustainability of oss anything you worry about?

I read papers about copyleft in general but I personally have run in with this for agpl, i should say

that copyleft licenses have disputed consequences in the EU is a fact, which makes them inherently risky

Genuine question: i want to start a project which fundamentally i would line to open source. I want people and in particular people working in companies to use my project.

However i also want to be able to make a living from it if it takes off ie build a business on it. I guess if that business has competition purely from hosted copies, that is also fine.

However, I do not want any hyperscalers to fork and close source the project. I want sny benefit to continue to be available.

So it seems I should choose Agpl. But i know that in most companies this leads to being blacklisted, especially in the EU where its legally unclear what the AGPL entails. Without corporate adootion i do not see the project gaining traction so i would only do it for myself.

With permissive licensing it seems a rug pull is inevitable to be able to do it full time.

What to do?

It’s easy to say everyone else is wrong but the majority of innovation and new projects nowadays are coming from people wanting to do oss while still supporting a business with it. That is having it be more than a hobby.

Now you can say that this itself is already a misunderstanding and maybe you are right, but I think you forget also that software reality has changed and indeed there was a time when oss fulltime was viable.

Now the reality is that there is no business model other than closed source or oss with some inevitable rug pull of some sort.

And that is not what should be

Copyleft are sadly unclear legally which is why essentially no company uses copyleft licenses even if they should.

I mean the intend of apgl is exactly right, but in practice it means you can never ever use it in a company even if you really do not even want to change it or sell it or host it in isolation in any way.

That is really frustrating. Most internal licensing tools i have seen just literally blacklist any direct copyleft imports

The fork is typically closed source so you do not get to benefit from it and neither does the public good.

This of course means that you should never use permissive licensing since it doesn’t provide many key benefits of what people thought oss would do. You could use copyleft but i guess with llms it kinda amounts to the same

The issue is that hyperscalers will not host your product. They will fork it, close source it, and you get no benefit not even security research.

And if you use copyleft, nobody uses your product (or asks flr a commercial non FOSS license)

No you are wrong. People want adoption by any company other than hyperscalers. People would be happy to sell service contracts and the like while keeping their code foss, if only hyperscalers weren’t direct competitors to that.

But the reality is that current copyleft licenses means immediate blacklist by most companies legal department.

Which is why almost all cooyleft companies offer copyleft plus some corporate licensing even though in 99 percent of the cases it has nothing to do with the spirit of copyleft as companies just want to import and use the damn package in some completely unrelated internal project or whatever

The combination of unclear legal precedent and corporate governance means that copyleft in it’s current state exactly does not work as most people want

I really would like to but from working in consulting I know that AGPL is banned in most companies since it’s specifics are completely diffuse and need to be hashed out in court (or are unpalatable).

In spirit the AGPL is what is needed but in practice it kills any corporate adoption sadly.

A license that singles out hyperscalers or goes by revenue is probably a better bet.

Maybe a license that is more clear canbe written, maybe not.

If your last sentence were true, you’d prefer a world where hyperscalers do not fork and close source a FOSS project but the FOSS project continues on to thrive

With copyleft being effectively banned in most companies, it means that there is no viable FOSS business model.

Reality is that for now, many FOSS contributors do it for free in their spare time. Comically critical pieces of infrastructure rely on such goodwill development. But as cozy salaries decline and job security does, less people will have time to work for free. We will have less Foss, less innovation, less new viable projects compared to if there were no hyperscalers.

How does this advancing the public good?

Language is defined by society and not by some foundation setting definitions

Open source means exactly what people say it means and what they want to understand by it

So compete with AWS or do not make money at all?

What a weird reality, seems hyperscalers have truly won and OSS is dead at the same time

Aws killing off an oss company by shady anti competitive tactics and inherenting their code for free is certainly not in the spirit of oss

So if you are only saying it is their right, well, as per know CLA it is well within the oss companies right to change license for new version

You also knew this when you started using it. Why do you call it a rug pull now when you knew it could happen?

Nobody knows what the AGPL actually says, since it has not been determined sufficiently in court (at least in the EU) which is why the license is blacklisted by most companies.

If you want corporate adoption except AWS, you still cannot use AGPL.

I feel like there should be a license that doesn’t allow hyperscalers alone to fork without releasing source while being palatable to smaller companies

They did figure it out. Contributors signed CLA and so their license change was absolutely legal and in line with what everyone agreed upon. When you started using the product, you should have known this.

See what I did there?

Never had an issue on Mac, never got it to work properly on a single of my many linux laptops

The question you ask is really important, because it shows how devious the Stasi regime was and why it lasted half a century. Why would they do this? Why would they go through these lengths to destroy a person so entirely they wouldn't even need to disappear them?

The Stasi knew that power is never that absolute. The GDR was built upon the idea that is was good, not evil (like the West). You can't be good and regularly disappear public figures, especially those from intellectual cycles. Additionally, people were aware of the oppression as is. If the GDR would have simply disappeared people, there would have been revolts. Germans were too connected to the other reality.

Here is a popular song from that time

I think what I want,

and what makes me happy,

but all in silence,

and as it befits.

My wish and desire

no one can forbid,

it remains so:

thoughts are free.

...

And if they lock me up

in a dark dungeon,

all that is purely

futile work;

for my thoughts

tear through the barriers

and walls in two:

thoughts are free.

Linux UIs can’t even align fonts correctly within the elements.

It is miles away from the original and you can immediately see its Linux because things don’t quite line up. Huge difference in quality, attention to detail, and the entire interface becomes unpleasant to look at.

Also, Linux power management and lack of hibernation means its useless on laptops

But they score it on their own benchmark, on which coincidentally Gemini models always were the only good ones. In Nolima or Babilong we see that Gemini models still cant do long context.

Excited to see if it works this time.