Just your normal everyday casual software dev. Nothing to see here.

  • 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle







  • 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



  • 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






  • 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




  • Honestly starting with the re-overturning of “money is people” also known as Citizens United would be a good start. This act more or less made it so money is considered free speech which allowed any type of Corporation to spend as much as they want on political groups, it was spearheaded as a thing that the country needed to avoid blocking things such as smear campaigning your opponent. But what it actually did was more or less remove the $5,000 limit that packs and super packs had on financing campaigns and and political donations, because all the Super PAC has to do now is say they aren’t politically aligned with a party and they can just funnel as much money into that party as they like, which obviously puts any party that remotely goes against profit(in most cases the democratic party because they generally want more social styled programs) at a significant disadvantage

    Not to mention the federal committees that were intentionally implemented to stop corruption that happened within the government because we knew that we couldn’t be trusted to deal with important things such as communication and Airline Administration are being gutted by the same system that was supposed to protect them. While everyone’s using the excuse of well they’re not doing anything so why have them. They’re not doing anything because they can’t, hell the FCC has tried and the court system is saying they don’t have the right to rule over the department that they’re a committee over. It’s ridiculous