4,197 karma · joined April 14, 2016
Since JetBrains has been mentioned multiple times here, it's worth pointing out that they do not do this. If you do not renew, the fallback license applies to the version on the day you purchased, not the version at the time the license lapsed.
Perpetual licensing + paid support and maintenance contract balances the core goal.
That said, sometimes software is just "done". The classic unix utilities like `cat` don't need monthly releases. If you can reach that stage, there should be no need to ship new developments regularly and focus should shift to ensuring it keeps running ("maintenance mode")
let { 0: one, 2: three, 4: five } = nums;https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share at ~3% of overall share / 7% desktop-only share it's hard to justify putting extra effort.
> whether an OSS project lends itself to monetization is a really interesting and subtle question. rule of thumb, be at least two of these: big, boring (roughly correlates with "infrastructural" as @patio11 puts it), and lacking obvious substitutes
Many projects with high star counts fall into only one of those categories
[0]: https://twitter.com/colinhacks/status/1422222156340072456
A useful free and open source project garners GitHub stars and general recognition because it is useful, but also because it is free. The stars are the social compensation in this case. The free nature of the software is essential to that relationship.
> Due to the nature of Codex, Copilot, and AI in general, Plaintiffs cannot be certain these examples would produce the same results if attempted following additional trainings of Codex and/or Copilot.
The offending solution from the AI included extra lines that are reasonably understood to come straight from Eloquent JavaScript:
console.log(isEven(50));
// → true
console.log(isEven(75));
// → false
console.log(isEven(‐1));
// → ??This would be more or less analogous to Copilot linking to lines in repositories. If Copilot was doing that, there wouldn't be much outrage.
The fact that they are producing the entire relevant snippet, without attribution and in a way that does not necessitate referencing the source corpus, suggests the transgression is different. It is further amplified by the fact that the output itself is typically integrated in other copyrighted works.
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.
If Copilot is straight-up reproducing work, and it is a service that users have to pay to use, then it seems like Copilot is "sell[ing] your content" and thus the license does not apply.
More generally, a court is likely to look at the plain English summary and judge. Copilot is not an integral part of "the service" as developers understood it before Copilot existed.
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
This is the "attribution" requirement that even a Copilot trained on only-MIT code would miss.
If it were just about sharing code, there are public domain declarations and variants like CC0 licenses
There was a recent conversation over ViteJS (a pure JS bundler) vs rust-based tooling, and when you dig into the numbers the real difference is SWC vs Babel. It raises the question whether a new transpiler written in JS can be competitive with Rust, but it's unclear if anyone tried.
The biggest reason the laws can't possibly hope to stop the practice is:
> [MysteryInc152] told me the training process took about 2.5 hours on a GPU at Vast.ai, and cost less than $2.
As those costs are driven down and the software is accessible to more people, distribution of the weights will not be needed.
> Since Gitea is a pure community organization without any company support, to keep the development healthy we will elect three owners every year.
> When the new owners have been elected, the old owners will give up ownership to the newly elected owners
According to CONTRIBUTING.md, this dates back to 2016. The new company represents a shift from the community model that attracted many developers and users.
The issue is that ultimately Lunny holds the trademark and isn't legally bound to uphold whatever agreement is stated in the repo.
Compare with Warcraft III Reforged. Modding with the original WC3 was extremely popular: DotA started as a mod for WC3, so Blizzard should have focused on compatibility. Not doing so led to the poor reception.
The same problem plays out in the JS engine space (Deno raised $21M and Bun raised $7M) and in the framework space (e.g. Remix raised $3M). As long as there's money to be made and investors to fund projects, there won't be consolidation.
The comment from Akka's relicense [1] applies just as well here:
"""
1) Project is open source
2) People use the project because it is open source
3) People contribute bug reports and fixes, creating value and improving the open source project because it is open source
4) People spread the word about the project, free marketing because it is open source
5) Maintainers decide to relicense, privatizing the value created by the community.
The "success" was a social phenomenon, not merely the efforts of the maintainers.
Relicensing is a betrayal of the community that was built around the software.
"""
> The .NET Foundation accepts projects that use permissive licenses within that set [of OSI-approved licenses].
> The board clarified that projects in the Foundation must use a permissive OSI-approved license and that projects would all be treated the same.
Per the linked article https://sixlabors.com/posts/license-changes/
> Previous attempts (sponsorship, support license) to provide a sustainable income to ensure the continued development of the Six Labors libraries have not proven successful, yielding less than a few months of developer income over a period of several years.
It sounds like James' monetization efforts were unsuccessful. The new monetization approach and relicensing is not considered compatible with the open source nature of the dotnet foundation. Whether the new approach works remains to be seen, but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill.
const n = 0/-1, p = 0/1;
n === p; // true
1/n === 1/p; // false
1/n === -Infinity; // true
1/p === Infinity; // true
Infinity === -Infinity; // falseCopilot exists publicly, which also means some copilot-lite thing trained on a smaller subset of repos probably exists privately in many different places. It may not be as good today, but these private instances will improve over time. Since the demand for a copilot-like service exists, eventually a large VC-funded public instance will show up.
In that lens, it is more sensible on the individual level to prepare for a world where copilot thrives than to put all of your eggs in the "ban copilot" basket.
There is a FOSS GitLab https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss
The hosted gitlab.com instance uses EE features so parent is correct to say that the gitlab.com site is not open source.
Codeberg is a fork of Gitea https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea which curiously uses GitHub for hosting.
> Create full-fledged APIs for slowly moving datasets without writing a single line of code.
Even the name of the project "ROAPI" has "read only" in the name.