My rule-of-thumb is: is the licence going to make things better for users? In other words, I try to predict whether a company would just not use my AGPL-licensed code, or would potentially contribute back. If they wouldn’t, I don’t really care and rather my code at least gets used to build something presumably useful.
- 0 Posts
- 9 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
0·16 days agoNo worries! Thanks for updating your comment :)
If you think you know what happened or the context, you probably don’t. Please don’t make assumptions. Thank you.
Someone might want to check that, because IIRC it was someone else’s alter ego.
No worries, thanks again!
Which Mozilla projects started out as free and are now non-free, i.e. no longer under an open source (or even viral open source) licence?
It was collapsed for me at first, and buried under a lot of other comments, but a workaround is mentioned here. Unfortunately, that didn’t seem to work for me, but deleting the Flatpak and deleting all associated data, and then reinstalling it, I think did the trick.
Although it does now show this warning, which doesn’t sound great.
Edit: actually, I think that was the reason I concluded the first workaround didn’t work, but looking at that URL, this might just have been introduced in Firefox 128, which is newer than the old version of Tor was based on. So it looks like both worked.
So… How do we do we’re running an outdated version, and what is the fix that requires manual intervention?
Yeah I get that point, and so my point is that if the use case is important enough that they’d be able to justify allocating that personnel, I use the AGPL to give them that nudge. When it’s just some non-critical component, then I’ll just slap an MIT on it and be done with it.