Sorry @jonny@neuromatch.social. I was being a hypocrite and an ass. I’ll try and be more constructive with my feedback.
Good luck on the project! I hope that it will be a success!
Sorry @jonny@neuromatch.social. I was being a hypocrite and an ass. I’ll try and be more constructive with my feedback.
Good luck on the project! I hope that it will be a success!
What’s the point of trying to be legal if this is legal? It completely destroys any semblance of competition.
@jonny@neuromatch.social I want to like this, but the repo and website do not convey this fundamental information about the project
The repository only has deployment notes.
The webpage has:
It doesn’t mention “tracker” anywhere and only mentions “bittorrent” once.
Please consider people who:
Ask yourselves who the target audience is and maybe even state it on your webpage.
Lastly, it’s probably too late to change the name and it’s a matter of taste, but making it a homonym to PsyOp make me immediately think that this has a connection to anti-vaxxers, chemtrail believers, flat-earthers, illuminati freaks, and just conspiracy theorists in general.
Maybe I’m the only one thinking this, but as it currently exists, the project feels very much like the old-school C projects that assumed you were “in the know” before even arriving at the website or project. It does not make it inviting - at least not to me. It may be a completely false impression, but it is my impression nonetheless.
I would then encourage you to look up how those work and what proof of work actually is. Proof of work requires some work to be done by the client. If you want regular people to browse the internet normally and “do work”, that means JavaScript, otherwise it requires them to install an extra binary like TOR or something, which would lock out most of real users. I imagine that’s not the goal of site operators.
There must be a tool that allows you to build packages for multiple systems in multiple formats (deb, rpm, nix, flatpak, snap, etc.). Does that not exist? After 20 years of these systems existing, somebody must’ve tried…
Also, it’s clear that once again, open source needs some kind of funding model, because it’s a little crazy that a project like this can get so popular so fast, the dev flooded with praise, thanks, and issues but not money to maintain and develop it.
How would that work? And how easy would it be to circumvent? Anubis probably forces spinning up a browser or something that supports a JS runtime (again probably a browser), so it’s not as easily scriptable as just callling an HTTP endpoint. I’m curious how you would implement a system without JS.
That just looks like an Apple clone. Why do people think that’s “user friendly”?
Thank you for sharing Post Open. I like that idea. We need a solution to companies just leeching off of opensource projects and not contributing back. It looks like a good initiative.
This is the text is suggested to be added
## Open Source Maintenance Fee
This project requires an [Open Source Maintenance
Fee](https://opensourcemaintenancefee.org/). While the source code is
freely available under the terms of the LICENSE, all other aspects of
the project--including opening or commenting on issues, participating in
discussions and downloading releases--require [adherence to the
Maintenance Fee](./OSMFEULA.txt).
In short, if you use this project to generate revenue, the [Maintenance
Fee is required](./OSMFEULA.txt).
To pay the Maintenance Fee, [become a Sponsor](https://github.com/sponsors/<YOURORGNAME>).
The EULA template can be found here. This is the part I find important
- Conflicts with OSI License
To the extent any term of this Agreement conflicts with User’s rights under the OSI License regarding the Software, the OSI License shall govern. This Agreement applies only to the Binary Release and does not limit User’s ability to access, modify, or distribute the Software’s source code or self-compiled binaries. User may independently compile binaries from the Software’s source code without this Agreement, subject to OSI License terms. User may redistribute the Binary Release received under this Agreement, provided such redistribution complies with the OSI License (e.g., including copyright and permission notices). This Agreement imposes no additional restrictions on such rights.
I think it’s a good attempt, but I’m not sure how it can be enforced. It would also need to be applicable to different jurisdictions. The project maintainer would have to know that somebody requesting a feature, commenting or participating in discussions is doing so in the name of the company 🤔
Thank you for sharing this. It’s food for thought.
Yeah, there’s absolutely no reason people hate EA. They are an insane force for good in this world and there’s reason to ever look past the shiny veneer. After all, everything shiny must be good. I mean, why vote with your wallet when you could just open the wallet and give money to whatever you like without any fore or afterthought. Money doesn’t give corporations any power, that’s just an illusion. Keep consuming and all will be fine.
Nintendo had registered the patents in a filing not long after Palworld’s release, setting the stage for the lawsuit.
How is that even legal? Decades after releasing something, a competitor comes along and releases their product, so you decide “now’s the time to file a patent” and you can kill the competitor. That should create a very unstable business environment as no new business can be safe when making a patent check as they can be filed after you created a product by somebody else. It makes no sense.
If this is what it takes for people to understand what privacy is… This is why “I have nothing to hide” is bullshit. You might become the registered Dutch Jew the Nazis are seeking, and surveillance capitalism don’t just tell them where you live but also where you are this very moment.
Don’t be daft, protect your privacy.
https://stopkillinggames.com/
Target your anger about this to something productive.
Anti Commercial-AI license