The isc/bsd2 license does not protect the user

My brother in christ, unix was all rights reserved. There was a non-compete agreement prohibiting at&t from selling their OS, hence why it was more or less given to universities. Later, the BSD's did a theseus ship, and at&t still tried to claim ownership through legal methods. For them, the license symbolizes this independence from at&t, which is why it doesnt lay claims on user protection.

all you ever get is bad faith debate

My fellow homosapien, the question is framed in the baddest faith imaginable.

Proton is most certainly a mission critical Valve product. But, yeah, use whatever. I swear by Fedora.

Look, im not even going to respond the first part. I love the bsd's as well, from a technical standpoint. From a licensing standpoint, not so much (i see the value in a short license, though).

Im not concerned by what these companies use or do not use. Im concerned about protecting my, and other 'common good' software with a license that strictly prohibits user exploatation. The GPL does this perfectly.

I see op is fluent is stroke, much impress

Not sure if its better, did both and i havent noticed much difference. Forgejo runs codeberg though and is maintained by them. Also has CI with forgejo actions.

For those wondering, this seems to be MIT licensed. I didnt check all components.

What is this shit? What are you implying?

This is somewhat concerning, as im a big fan of working for free, as long as it benefits the users. I have also been looking at the EUPL as a happy middleground (it permits static linking, while any changes to the acual code is copyleft). Copyleft is important, and needs to be talked about.

?? Where source

I would also add IPFS, a REALLY cool piece of tech.

Some really interesting suggestions in this thread that i will definately look into when i find the time.

Absolutely this. It almost seems like a controversial opinion sometimes, but microdependencies is a code smell imo. This could largely be improved by providing a more extended standard lib, at the cost of innovation and velocity maybe. I found this interesting: https://blessed.rs/crates

Name checks out

Will definately take a look, thanks.

Yes, but this comes with restrictions on distribution of your binary/code/artifacts.

I see the value in these restrictions, but i also see why these libraries are avoided in commercial settings. These terms often come as a suprise from my understanding.

The EUPL solves this by only making claims of the actual modifications to the EUPL licensed components, not any third party user code.

This license (EUPL) was designed with cooperarion as the primary motive, and this is very valuable in my opinion.

I believe the reason we see so much permissive code is because of said suprises with the GPL's, it defeats the utility of the license itself. I say this as an avid GPL lover, but i have also seen projects like libopencm3, which desperately needs EUPL.

On the other hand we have projects like Linux and VESC, where we absolutely positively need to kill user-exploatation dead in its tracks, mostly since it is an end-user product. The GPL serves its purpose perfectly here.

Also, you might note that the MPL is a valid choice here, but it does not offer the same protection in the case of third party extension of the licensed code, since it is file-based, in essence.

Ive actually spent a good amount of time looking into licenses, would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Here is a discussion and Here is the original author (i think) of the EUPL.

Yeah, im aware. Mostly mentioned to set the tone.

Mint.

Man kate is such a banger.

We dont want a bunch of proprietary extensions to an open communications standard, do we? This is something positive.

That said, I dont have much hope for matrix. Implemented in python with the initial goal of "bridging every chat platform in existence" is just bound to be a disaster.

Maintaining anything beyond a couple of hundred lines in python becomes tedious imo.

The rewrite in go has been spoken about since like 2018, and matrix.org still runs synapse iirc. Synapse should have been trashed immediately after MVP demonstration.

Theres also conduit, but to be honest, i feel like the lesson here is to avoid feature creep. Safe, fast and distributed dm text chat should have been the target functionality, with a lean, mean codebase.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk