VoxPelli

Good explanation here: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/

It’s from the day that the code is released under the license and the four years is the max under BSL (so that people know roughly what the “worst case scenario” it a BSL licensed software would be) but can be specified to be shorter by the one releasing code under it.

iOS almost allows this for geo-location nowadays, where one can pick whether to give ones exact position or a much less exact position, and for photos where one can select exactly what photos the app should get access to.

Also, note that Google prohibits all use of SSPL just like it prohibits use of AGPL: https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#agpl-aff...

It also prohibits use of Business Source Licensed software, but as source code under that license will always after at most 4 years transition to a GPL compatible license, all such code will eventually be possible to use at Google and one can easily maintain a GPL-compatible fork that merges code in as the BUSL expires, thus enabling a good exchange between BUSL and open source, whereas no such exchange is possible with SSPL, its forever stuck in a AGPL like license and most companies generally stay far far away from AGPL.

Not true that it doesn’t allow production usage, it just doesn’t do it by default.

The intention is that it’s up to the one using the BUSL to specify to which degree production usage is allowed:

“The Licensor may make an Additional Use Grant, above, permitting limited production use.”

Eg. Sentry allows all non-SaaS production deployments of their BUSL licensed code, which is pretty much the same goal as here, but with BUSL the code will be actually open source eventually whereas here it will stay in this extended AGPL-like license forever?

Seems like there’s no talk on why they picked SSPL over BSL?

I like BSL because it always eventually transitions to an ordinary open source license. So over time all BSL licensed code will actually be open source. That seems to not be the case with SSPL?

Good post on BSL: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/

I myself don't think it's necessary to host it locally at home. The most key thing to me is to control the domain name so that I can move from one provider to another.

It's different because the blogosphere was all about posting blog posts whereas social media, which started out being called "microblogs", is about posting other types of material and doing other kinds of social interaction.

In essence the indieweb enables posting all of those types of content, and making all of those interactions, through ones own site, in a way that can give a user experience comparable to eg. Twitter.

It's the classic pendulum of innovation – Twitter and friends spearheaded new interactions and UX that once proven can be standardized and implemented in the open, just like the blogosphere was an open implementation of the pattern of news sites.

Micropub is a more recent alternative to XML-RPC: https://indieweb.org/Micropub

There are two approaches:

* The federated approach, where many Twitter like sites can interconnect and exchange messages. One current example of this is Mastodon, older examples are Status.net/Identi.ca

* An indie approach, where everyone basically hosts their own profile and there are no Twitter like sites at all, one instead uses readers that are completely separate from ones hosted profile, just like it was in the blogosphere days. One example of this is https://indieweb.org/

I favor the indie approach as the federated approach seems to in practice often end up with interoperability issues and mono-cultures, at least historically. + there’s still central providers, just a few more than in the case of Twitter, whereas in the indie world everyone is basically a provider themselves and one can eg. put up a static site and use that (through various Micropub tricks and such)

Is it just me who dislike being incentivized like this to do something? By having someone do a totally unrelated donation to charity when I do something?

I much rather do X because X itself is good than because X will have someone do Y and have me consider X to be good because Y is good.

It is essentially green washing, no matter how well intended it is or how good X in itself is. Doing some totally unrelated donation is essentially PR, where one instead could lower prices and have me myself donate that money.

(Also, credit card charges are insane and almost amount to stealing a percentage of all sales from businesses. Debit cards are better in that they, at least in Sweden, have a fixed low rate that doesn't change if someone buys for a lot or a little)

I myself have only used it on MacOS, Chrome OS (and Android), so supported in most places?

Yeah, was a pointless nitpick from me, had a smilie in there but Hacker News apparently removes those.

On your comment though: I think maybe MacOS Big Sur disagrees with you: https://twitter.com/voxpelli/status/1343323353294262272?s=21 Not sure if kernel level or other level, but it sure has made eg VS Code pretty slow for some people ;)

It’s a “progressive” web app though, so such a one is never all or nothing.

Pretty much: Have a Service Worker and/or a Web Manifest and you are well on your way to claim to have a PWA

You are describing desktop PWA:s here, the “runtime” is the browser :)

Chrome already supports it. You can install eg Twitter or GitHub Codespaces locally and they will appear as apps on your desktop system.

There are Electron like tools for mobile platforms though

Well, those mobile platforms are yet to mature.

So the “mobile Firefox” there isn’t really a mobile Firefox just the desktop browser used in a mobile context? Or does Mozilla support such platforms in any official way?

Even the Android Firefox app just got fairly recently rebuilt, mobile isn’t really Mozilla’s strong game after they shut down Firefox OS (which though strangely lives on as KaiOS)

Also: Both Android and Jolla are also Linux based

Sorry, should have included that: https://developers.google.com/web/android/trusted-web-activi...

Basically: It’s a way to verify that an app represents your site and then that app can open up the PWA inside it (a bit tricky to explain, but it’s great if one wants to be in the store and/or have an existing non-PWA app that one wants to upgrade to a PWA)

More info: https://firt.dev/pwa-playstore

You do know that one can publish PWA:s to Google Play Store by using TWA:s + that Google are experimenting with allowing plain PWA:s there + have recently launched a way to still allow in app purchases in such?

Also – on desktop many apps are Electron apps today, which is a user hostile workaround for lack of installable PWA:s.

Installable PWA:s could in many cases replace Electron apps completely and would be superior as they would contain a much more up to date browser.

Kind of misleading title – what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox: https://twitter.com/englishmossop/status/1344428028315590656...

Service Workers, push notifications and such are still supported.

And I believe you can install PWA:s on Firefox for Android?

Loveliest part was the part right before that:

“Just let me geek out for a second”

Absolutely IBM storage person, the more geeking out the better!

A vendor like what AWS does with Glacier

It probably references the density within the data tape world, which is significant as there could be other ways to achieve a higher total storage, but this is one of the major components here it seems

The BSL strikes a good balance there: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/

As it always resolves to an open source license after a set amount of time + is always free in many other ways.

Like the BSL? The Business Source License: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/

Do we know this?

The AGPL goes further than GPL in the requirement of providing source code, so in a way its more GPL than GPL itself and thus maybe "better".

On the prisoner's dilemma – I see two major dimensions in BSD/MIT vs GPL:

* Should a license enforce the giving back of code or should one be free to do so out of ones own will? Which is the most "free"? Enforced freedom or freedom to be free? (Which one is best really depends on how one defines and values "free")

* Does a long and complex license like the GPL help a project or is the simplicity and shortness of BSD/MIT better?

(Then there's the third type of license which is Apache, which is basically as open as BSD/MIT, but still as long and complex as GPL, to cover eg. patents in addition to intellectual property)

The one who refuses to move to GPL3?

And Feross himself is a perfect example of one who is trying out different ways to be a full-time open source developer: https://feross.org/funding-experiment-recap/

Having companies and individuals supporting him: https://feross.org/thanks/

As well as offering actual support contracts: https://feross.org/support/

What companies like Nintendo should do is to sign up for OSS support services like https://www.tidelift.com/, and whether they have or haven’t we don’t know.

Sending out free consoles would just be a marketing gimmick, and could just as well backfire as “you can’t eat a console, do Nintendo really think consoles are the way to support open source maintainers?” etc