Company: This interview does not require prior preparation.

Also company: Here is a 4-minute walkthrough of what the interview will actually look like - we recommend you review this so you know what to expect.

This is essentially what Mozilla is doing but providing a legal framework for all open source projects.

As an open source developer, my initial reaction is that this isn’t good. You’re just shifting the problem. Your code remains open source so if you have a python or JavaScript library that doesn’t require compiling, you can’t use this.

Not only that, but FOSS requires you to provide build instructions for your binaries. Someone can clone your repository and run it through CI/CD and have a binary.

I’m willing to be proven wrong here.

I’ve seen only one method work well: strong copyleft FOSS licenses like AGPL that essentially make it impossible for a company like Amazon from profiting off your code without a separate agreement.

You could add a non-commercial clause to your open source license. I can’t find the one that I used to use back in the day but essentially the goal is to augment whatever license you use by attaching a preamble that dictates how the software can be used.

Attaching that clause does push the software out of FOSS and into source available since you are restricting who can use the software, which is why I stopped using it.

Edit: found the clause I used to use back in the day. I don’t personally recommend it over more copy left licenses.

Librewolf btw.

I’ve personally moved to Waterfox and very much enjoying the experience, with a few hiccups.

There may be Mac specific browsers that might be a better fit. I don’t use a Mac personally but could be worth going through the App store to see what is out there.

You’re welcome. I’ve been covering this issue since it’s been announced. There are a number of accounts who are either deliberately spreading misinformation or who have a very poor understanding of how software licenses work.

Anyone who tells you that these terms are normal for a locally run browser is making the posts in bad faith.

Mozilla’s new TOU only covers pre built Firefox executables, not the source code.

Librewolf and Waterfox are good forks that would not be bound to the TOU.

They do not. Your use of the software, with software you “control” (edge cases of cloud compute, etc.) does not require you to grant a license to the software.

I refuted most of these points on this user’s post.

This is absolutely abnormal. No browser should require a license to my own data unless they plan on doing something with it.

No other FOSS includes this language and I would argue that Firefox executable is no longer FOSS. It’s now source available.

You made the Internet wonderful today. Thank you! I’m going to try it out.

I want gesture support so badly like in Nova Launcher.

Swipe up for one app, swipe down for another app, etc.

smart launcher does exactly one gesture (double tap) and is woefully inadequate for me.

Does lawn chair offer that?

Ooh it’s an early termination fee. OP made it sound like there was a fee on top of the subscription cost. Which I guess still fits the definition.

Still scummy.

Also, make sure you have backups. I don’t care how stable NTFS drivers are I don’t fucking trust them for daily use, especially writes.

I recommend copying files off of NTFS and onto ext4 if you’re able. If you can’t, try to keep operations to read only.

I’ve lost too many drives due to stupid issues (sometimes me making an error, sometimes the driver not working properly).

Backup:

• 3 different locations
• 2 different media formats
• 1 offsite

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don’t.

What is Twidium’s deal? They are the most expensive and take the longest.

What we should do is put chainlink fence around the corner, but make the part that the users loved the most accessible with a monthly pass that they can only walk on with shoes purchased at the university store.

- spez

If you set up using compose and don’t have the version pinned:

dockee compose down && docker compose pull jellyfin && docker compose up -d

Switching licenses to future versions doesn’t invalidate previous versions released under GPL.

I’m not a lawyer but I deal with OSS licenses for work and I don’t know if there’s ever been a case like this, that I can think of anyway.

Their previous versions, still being under the GPL, would require them to release a change to make it usable on desktops. Again, I’m not a lawyer here but there is a lot of case law behind the GPL and I think the user who made the issue could take them to court to force them to make the change if they don’t respond in 30 days.

Iirc, once reported, the project has 30 days to remedy or they are in violation of the license. They can’t even release a new version with a different license since this version is out under the GPL.

They’re not going to survive

Are you kidding me?

Alexander Bell stole the telephone.

Edison regularly stole inventions from Tesla among others.

Steve Jobs fucking mind raped Woz.

The American Dream is taking someone else’s hard work and profiting off of it.

It’s one of the reasons why I hate license proliferation. These custom licenses aren’t tested against case law so if they think you’re in violation you have to defend yourself.

The only way to give these assholes a run for their money is for people to start forking the project and ignoring any terms that are in violation of the GitHub TOS.