Please add cross-references when you post the same post to two communities at the same time. That way, people can find the other comments and discussion.
Open core, closed extensions. Not really clear how that significantly improves the situation. I doubt they'll diverge the two code bases(?).
The vault symbolism is pretty bad. A software product is much different to a vault, and a sister-vault-product you publish the blueprint for anyway.
At the same time, we still care deeply about open source. That’s why we are releasing a version of our codebase to the community under the MIT license as Cal.diy.
While our production codebase has significantly diverged, including major rewrites of core systems like authentication and data handling, we want to ensure there is still a truly open version available for developers, hobbyists, and anyone who wants to explore and experiment.
Huh? I don't get it. So the open product is an older, worse/different version/codebase? And they can do that without impacting their product risk because it's different?
The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are "further restrictions" under the (A)GPLv3. It states, "[i]f the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."
Interesting, and quite clear.
The whole response is very good, reasonable, and direct.
I'm interested to see what OnlyOffice will do. Maybe they'll relicense their whole product, leading to a community fork under AGPL.
Cooperation and sharing performs significantly better for collective gains. This applies to all kinds of concepts. Science, public infrastructure, common goods, common resources, governance, trade agreements, EU, medicine, software…
Where it becomes problematic is when parties reap gains without participating. Using science to develop products and gain further knowledge without sharing them, using public infrastructure without paying taxes, using common infrastructure and frameworks without committing to them, nationalism, monopolies on medicine, proprietary software and platforms that are not cooperative…
Much of our transformation and development speed and gains in the last century has been in a framework of cooperation. In the current global politics, we can see and imagine what rejecting cooperation could lead to and where it could lead us to.
FOSS is great for the same reasons as other forms of cooperation: Collective gains.
Unfortunately, we have not solved the issue of beneficiaries that don't actively participate and contribute yet.
In patent law, you publish your findings and get a timespan of authoritative use and control but at the same time commit to it being publicly accessible and at some point usable. Some software licenses attempt to do the same.
In music licensing, there's frameworks for collective licensing.
Some frameworks use centralized/government regulation and prosecution to ensure play-fair systems. (To varying degrees and success, obviously.)
I get where you're coming from, but I disagree [with disliking the software freedom]. The upsides and collective gains of software freedom are undeniable. Where we need to do and establish more, and some things are happening in some places, is to ensure a positive collaborative environment overall.
I use Cascadia Code / the NerdFonts extension Caskaydia Code.
Primarily I look for readability, distinguishability. Ligatures are nice, I came to like them. Eligibility on different font sizes and weight/bold and italic, and colors - they must remain very readable and distinguishable.
I'm using the same font (family) for coding and terminal/console.
.net runtime after 10 months of using and measuring where LLMs (including latest Claude models) shine reported a mindboggling success rate peaking at 75% (sic!) for changes of 1-50 LOC size - and it’s for an agentic model (so you give it a prompt, context, etc, and it can run the codebase, compile it, add tests, reason, repeat from any step, etc etc).
They're bash/shell- and bin-dependent commands rather than Git commands. I use Nushell.Transformed to Nushell commands:
The 20 most-changed files in the last year:git log --format=format: --name-only --since="1 year ago" | lines | str trim | where (is-not-empty) | uniq --count | sort-by count --reverse | take 20
Who Built This:git shortlog -sn --no-mergesgit shortlog -sn --no-merges --since="6 months ago"
Where Do Bugs Cluster:git log -i -E --grep="fix|bug|broken" --name-only --format='' | lines | str trim | where (is-not-empty) | uniq --count | sort-by count --reverse | take 20
Is This Project Accelerating or Dying:git log --format='%ad' --date=format:'%Y-%m' | lines | str trim | where (is-not-empty) | uniq --count
How Often Is the Team Firefighting:git log --oneline --since="1 year ago" | find --ignore-case --regex 'revert|hotfix|emergency|rollback'
/edit: Looks like the lines have whitespace or sth. Replaced lines --skip-empty with lines | str trim | where (is-not-empty).
Git push to Forgejo -> automated build, package, and deploy pipeline -> use secured credentials to upload via scp or ssh or sftp
Alternatives to copy-upload or upload-package and then extract via command is stuff like rsync (reduce redundant, unchanged file uploads) or a simple receiver service (for example REST endpoint that receives a package with an identifier key and secret key, that it extracts to a configured target folder).
What solutions are simplest or easiest depend on the target environment, and how much of it you control. If you host the website on Forgejo itself it's as simple as pushing the static files into the corresponding pages branch.
Possibly AI company crawlers. When they came up there was a lot of bad publicity and reports of actively malicious and toxic crawling behavior, including ban evasion.
You can think about locking some url paths behind valid login sessions, or use a proof of work proxy guard.
Anubis is the popular tool for that. I've seen maybe three alternatives, one of which from Cloudflare.
Firefox (probably?) also has process isolation - so it's no different to Chrome in that aspect. Which is probably good for a security feature like this.
Nushell