That's not quite how it works, you can relicense stuff under GPL and your distribution and any changes you made are GPL'd but the original remains MIT.
Really done with this take. Show some solidarity for your peers. So you like working from the office -- good for you! Do that! But also stand up for your colleagues who don't want that. When your colleagues have fewer choices, when things like this are imposed on them, well, your preferences are not far behind from being managed themselves.
Where did the person you’re replying to imply they didn’t have solidarity or wanted office work imposed on everyone?
The parent poster simply said “Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back.”
And the reply was essentially “to each their own but my WFH experience was different “ and you’re ready to jump down their throat with accusations of lack of solidarity.
It's just such a pointless distraction. Don't make it about you? It reminds me of men who hear that women get paid less and start complaining about their own salary.
"Hey, we have this problem." "To each their own but it doesn't affect me!"
You’re adding a lot of baggage to the poster here that they never implied. It’s pretty important to have a pulse on what’s important to employees.
Employers taking the posters point into consideration may mean that they’re a remote first company, but they also provide coworking passes for people that appreciate not working from home.
In the same way that pre-covid management monoculture was “WFH could never work”, the monoculture now risks being dominated by people who have dedicated home offices who seemingly can’t empathise with people who appreciate commuting somewhere, feigning outrage at anyone who could dare suggest that there are multiple perspectives.
They didn't say that? They directly replied to the claim that once you tried WFH you would never go back. Sounds like they were directly affected by it, and had a different experience.
Everyone is entitled to their personal preferences. You're attacking this guy for having a different preference than you, and you're filling in the blanks to make them seem hostile when they only expressed their personal preference. I dislike your rhetoric here as much as those of the forced return to the office crowd and for the exact same reason.
Well said! I'm a manager that strongly prefers to work from the office but fought hard for my team to WFH if they preferred to do so. So now about 20% of my team comes into the office (by choice) while the others WFH. Was lucky to have a boss that supported this and allowed me to craft our role definitions to support this with the global HR but was filling to fight as long as I could for this..
It makes a lot more sense than the usual psychology frameworks, so I would rather approach it from an evolutionary psychology point of view than not lol.
Not sure that "copyleft" is confusing or falling into disuse, I hear people talking about it without confusion pretty often. First time I've heard "reciprocal licensing".
I think "copyleft" is ubiquitous within the tech crowd but the first time I heard the term I was confused. Might be worth asking a few people you know in the real world who are not tech people to see if they knew what either means.
tl;dr: access to the source code will help people develop cheats but it's not really required, your game's gonna have cheaters unless you do server side cheat mitigations.
That covers things somewhat, but not entirely. In Dota (and other games), there are a lot of purely client side cheats, that are obtained by reverse engineering the closed source client. Some examples that can't be detected server side reliably.
* Keyboard macros. Actions that require multi keys pressed in sequence can be done with one key press.
* Bigger viewport. Your client has information about the entire visible map, but by default only shows a certain part on your screen. Client side hack zooms out the view and shows you a much larger area.
* Auto disable. A very strong cheat. If an enemy suddenly jumps on you from out of vision, immediately cast disable spell on them. Doesn't matter if you were looking somewhere else or doing something else.
Valve can't prevent people from creating these cheats, but they put code in other parts of the close source client that detects the usage of these cheats. Then they create a list of these cheaters and every few months have a ban wave. And change the code enough to break the cheat.
Its a team game. So you can see anything that is visible to your allies, and you can (and should be able to) pan your viewport around to see that stuff. So the client needs to know everything that is visible to your allies.
Plus there are things that happen outside your viewport that affect whats in your viewport, and trying to limit your client from knowing those things would cause all sorts of graphical artifacts.
Eg. there are some spells that affect an entire area (and have graphical affects associated with the whole area). Even if part of the spell area is in your Fog of War, your client needs to know about it completely, for the graphic drawing algorithms to run. The client draws the whole thing, and then obscures the part that should not be visible to you. Otherwise, the graphic algorithms would become get additional complexity that will possibly have performance impacts.
Not sure how this comes across as self-serving or what the nature of this protest is, but if you explain it in more detail perhaps I can make a correction.
Sorry if this came off as a protest. It is not a protest. Maybe I am overthinking this but creating this page (which is a great idea) and then have a link from it point back to sourcehut (which is an open source business of yours IIRC) seems a bit off. It wouldn't be a lot of trouble to disclose the connection between the author of this page and the owner of sourcehut, would it? I think it'd be nice to do it so that it does not look like you are using the agenda of promoting free software to also promote your own open source business.
I dunno, it's just a place to store the code, and SourceHut is itself free software. I could put it on Codeberg or something, I guess, but it doesn't really seem like a big deal. Never heard anyone criticize the FSF or GNU for their use of savannah.gnu.org.
Since your site quite explicitly aims to be an introduction to the F/OSS, it'd be prudent to explain that the "use" includes "resell". Seeing one's altruistic work meant for the common good being unceremoniously repackaged, sold and SEO'd above the original can be very discouraging.
It's nowhere near being explicit. "Commercial use" is really quite ambiguous.
In common parlance of people somewhat exposed to the software licensing it means "use for work", because of the proliferation of "personal use" and "commercial use" licensing duos.
Realizing that this clause also covers other people being allowed to sell your work is a non-trivial effort. I'd also argue that this would go very much against expectations of FOSS newcomers as it's pretty much counter-intuitive as it goes against the altruistic spirit of the FOSS. Hence the need to have it explained upfront and very clearly.
Well, sure, you and I know that. This website is aimed at the novices however.
One of them will read through the website and get excited to give FOSS a try. He will put in the work, release the project only to see it getting reskinned and put up for sale. This will be as unexpected as it will be demoralizing. So this eventuality needs to disclosed upfront and not hid behind amorphous "commercial use" and misleading "a fee [...] for instance to cover the costs of bandwidth". Just be frank with those whom you are trying to convert, especially about the caveats.
I had the opposite issue -- something like 90% of genuine payments on my account are rejected by the fraud detector on the first try and have to be retried daily for several days before going through. I exchanged over a hundred emails with support in which they read the card testing script to me, tried to upsell me on "better" fraud management tools, disregarded any details I provided to show that the activity was non-fraudulent, gave me no insights into how the fraud detector worked or why it might be giving false positives, and refused to escalate my ticket anywhere. I had to beg to be put through to an engineer who knew anything about it, and still I couldn't get past front line support. Long gone are the days where you can talk to a Stripe engineer on IRC. Really badly soured me on Stripe and I started working on plans to move away from the platform entirely.
