I think we are heading towards a bit of a shift in this regard. With the CRA in Europe and similar legislation in the States it will become more important to have "enterprise" services surrounding open source software. This is for example support, but also vulnerability assessment and similar things.
I may be mistaken here, but I think we will see pure functionality become less important to enterprise customers, which might (maybe not, but one can hope) proper open source business models more viable again.
Aren't most responses not addressing the point of that study?
I understand the abstract to say that the likelyhood of heart conditions due to contracting Covid is higher than due to vaccination?
Thanks! That last one is probably the most important one as that mostly makes my comments "disappear" I think..
Regarding discussions on Slack, since our product is open source we would ideally like to keep discussions somewhere viewable and related to the code changes so that people can see what was discussed later on.
It is a bit hard to find that on Slack, or do you have some form of "system" for tagging discussions in there?
>Yes; if you're going to do this, then using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, standardization is a good thing and AGPL is the "known evil", but having read it I do think that it is a very very complex piece of text - personally I'd go so far as to say that it is close to incomprehensible and would prefer pretty much anything else.
But even aside from that the sheer number of companies that point blank ban AGPL licensed software from being used in their stack could be used as an indicator as well. Though this may be due to the common misunderstanding that it is a viral license, which just goes back to my prior point on it not being clearly worded.
I won't even mention alternatives, I'm sure they all have issues, it is a complex topic, but if it were up to me the AGPL would not be my first license choice.
The question is whether the alternatives are any better; IMO, this is unlikely (all the others I've seen make tradeoffs that I'd consider poor, personally).
I think the virality and companies not liking it is the license working as intended, honestly; it's supposed to be viral, that's the point of copyleft, and obviously companies take issue with that (although I agree that some of this might be misunderstanding scope / what it infects), but that's not a bug, it's the license doing its job and companies making decisions based on that.
My personal opinion (and it is really just that - I cannot prove anything I say here) is that for a lot of those companies it is actually the risk of not being able to tell exactly what the AGPL would affect that is the main factor.
As I said, I'm explicitly not mentioning any alternative here because they all have issues, but the AGPL's wording is much more complicated than most and that (perceived) insecurity around it is my main criticism.
Arguably selling support/services to a company using that product would help pay for developers that work on the product, which to me sounds like a benefit.
With the AGPL that would require dual licensing, and that draws flak as well.
I think the notion that OSS means there cannot be any money involved simply cannot hold true anymore these days. Software has become extremely complex and requires dedicated developers working on it - and they need to eat.
We are currently seeing a lot of companies changing their licensing model for a reason - because there is not currently a middle ground between OSS and a working business modell that the OSS crowd doesn't hate.
That being said, I'd love to be proven wrong here!
I'm not sure if I like your comparison to be honest.. not only is it not _just_ maintenance and filling the tank, if we stick with your picture, there is also things like buying the car, paying for it when no one uses it, insuring the car, repairing the car, general logistics of moving it around when someone has a one way rental, etc. - basically making it convenient for consumers to rent a car.
Looking at what "as a service" providers of open source software do though, that is taking it a step further, since they wrap the software in a layer that _smoothes_ out changes for the user. Going back to the rental company that would equate to the car manufacturer deciding the indicator needs to be on the right side of the steering wheel now and the rental company installing an adaptor so that it remains on the left for you, to keep the look and feel for the user the same.
A lot of people on HN have very simplistic views of industries. I sometimes wonder how they're not all billionaires. Everything is easy, simple, *just* this one thing. You'd imagine they're out there killing it.
I don't know, in the EGA version the sarcophagus is much more prominent, which takes away the focus from the face quite a bit.
To me the VGA version actually feels like it is more focussed on the face and shield by making the background less intrusive..
I think Kubernetes in principle gets a lot of things very right - but it has over time grown into this huge amorphous blob of complexity that makes it very easy to shoot yourself in the foot with, as many people said :)
That issue is not endemic to Kubernetes, but rather to any larger system past a certain age, you learn stuff as you go along and would do stuff differently if you did it again today - but you can't easily, because you cannot break compatibility for everybody using your stuff.
As a concrete example from the Kubernetes world, there is a talk by Tim Hockin [1] about how today, they would fundamentally design the api-server differently and base pretty much everything on CRDs.
The industry and the k8s project are still figuring out the right way to do things that don't require the organization, size, and technical choices Google made.
I may be mistaken here, but I think we will see pure functionality become less important to enterprise customers, which might (maybe not, but one can hope) proper open source business models more viable again.