having ADHD and trying to read this entire post, what a wonderful combo
Just your normal everyday casual software dev. Nothing to see here.
having ADHD and trying to read this entire post, what a wonderful combo
I was just about to say a comment on the billboards, like wtf how is this legal. So glad that my state has them banned lol
I recently learned not all commercial craft are fly by wire when watching a mentor pilot video, I was amazed it was legal. ofc it was a crash video, but still the fact it was legal appalled me
I’m mobile so I can’t check those numbers, but they leave the sources they got for the calculations they provided, by category here
I know the numbers are pretty on point for for poverty vs living wage for my area, but like any actual research studies YMMV, but they do have sources of why they have the numbers they do, and they are by verified/reliable sources
it’s not a copyright/dmca claim, they are claiming they are violating a patent of some kind, so it’s not visuals or names, I’m curious if it will be a ball object that captures them, cause like if so that’s so broad that it shouldn’t be able to be patented
the definition of living wage is already defined by MIT
They actually have a pretty decent website that calculates it for you here
I don’t like videos either tbh, but I would be ok with posts that are properly identified, so like [video] [news] [opinion] etc lol
yea and when that happens I just cancel, then I can worry about all the ad blocking and stuff, but currently it’s worth it for me
I agree that it’s a great investment, and it will definitely get people on board for if the platform really takes off. I think they’re definitely assuming that the majority of their people who pay the $400 aren’t going to remain on the platform which is probably a safe bet, once they get somewhat established and have content that’s more for the everyday person, I would probably recommend converting the lifetime license over to an extended long-term subscription.
So like a subscription that lasts five six years at like the price of 3 years of the monthly subscription price, I know if YouTube offered something like that I 1,000% would buy it in a heartbeat because I know that YouTube will still be around in that time frame and it’s a no-brainer cuz I use it daily,
That being said if they did end up having a significant amount of people that are still using the lifetime subscription, they may revert to adding features to the monthly subscriptions like how Discord does that entice you to switch to a new plan with a retroactive sub and then you just can’t switch back again.
This should be correct yes, as long as you don’t include code that was added after the license change you should be in Clearwater.
Technically speaking I don’t think it’s allowed for him to have changed the license to a more restrictive license in the first place because he didn’t rewrite the entire project when he did so which means it’s still containing code that under the license terms are supposed to be open indefinitely, but if you want to avoid all that drama you can just play it safe and Fork the version prior to him editing the license
Personally speaking now this isn’t going to stop the people that he’s trying to avoid that hassle with, because I don’t think he has legal ground because I don’t think the license change was within the allowed terms of his license in the first place
Sending as a second comment cuz I just now read your source, but it’s different than what my original comment was.
I didn’t realize the density that GPL code puts into your project, it does seem upon looking into it that that is correct that he cannot under GPL terms redistribute that software under the license that he’s chosen. He is violating the GPL by doing so, because even with permission of the contributors, GPL code cannot be converted over to a lesser freedom code without a full rewrite, because code that was generated while under the GPL can’t be locked down at a future date via a license that that is stricter than the existing one. The only thing you can do is make it less restrictive than GPL.
That being said, the only people who can report violations of code that is not following the GPL, are going to be copyright holders so if everyone was indeed okay with it there’s no one who would be able to pursue the violation anyway
My main concern is that he states that he has permission from every contributor so he isn’t misusing it, then immediately locks the repository to only people who had contributed before.
I understand it’s probably just a tactic to lower the amount of useless information from people wanting to comment from posts like this, but it doesn’t look good from a point of view of declaring Victory and then retreating immediately.
The lifetime access option shouldn’t exist for an app like that, not unless they have another primary form of income (usually ads). That type of service costs a lot of money to host and if you have a user base that does a one off purchase you stop having a good chunk of that income relatively fast
That’s just the main red flag I see from that, I would be super hesient starting on a platform that isn’t self sustaining and doesn’t have a parent company willing to chuck money at it “till it works” like Google did
not gonna lie, a little envious that your family knows how to install from apk, that would be my first bottleneck. They would hit the first scare screen and raise the white flag
it’s improved for me, as someone who easily watches 20ish hours of video a week It’s worth it for me to not have to deal with all the hassle of ad block on it. I run a pihole for everything else but the cat and mouse game got old. I currently get my money’s worth, but if it raises much further I’ll cancel.
fully agree, the maintainer pulled a “It’s my toy and I’m taking it elsewhere” which is never healthy for a project like that. Instead of embracing the fact people were active in the project he only focused on the fact that there was some malicious parties that were violating GPL, so his solution was to kill most external support of the project. It won’t survive that
according to the maintainer he got permission from everyone, and those who didn’t give the permission for he rewrote the code for. Least that’s how it seems to be here
Regardless as the maintainer of that GitHub clarified in a closed pull request, it’s not actually allowed on Github to have a license that blocks the ability to do forks and modify the programs yourself, I never knew this but it says it on the page he linked.
basically it seems if you post a project as public on Github, you implicitly grant a license to fork and use the code regardless of what it’s terms say since you need to follow those terms for the Github platform usage. The section 6 I’m not sure about though, cause the terminology confuses me, I can’t tell if it means that it can be supercedes or that it supercedes a private license
it seems his intent isn’t to dissuade people contributing, he’s just been burned a few times with GPL violations so he’s changing the terms to prevent that
ah yes, so you can get a card that will die before you manage to use all of it
it’s still practical to block them, twitch has adblockers and uses the same mechanics, if there’s a client rendered element(such as a pop up box that can be clicked) it’s detectable and therefor skippable or at the very least hidable.