Python 3.13 is adding support for removing GIL, via PEP 703

I really like that it is a static website being updated and built on a schedule from github actions.

Umami has a free tier of their cloud hosting.

In fairness websites from 2000-2004 werent all that better

Were there better ways to make a site? Absolutely, but it is much less wild than if you told me that this happened last week. Plus i would hope they were just churning out websites for cheap since a lot places didn’t have a website, or they used geocities/similar

The difference is that commercialization is inherent with a free (libre) open source license. Whereas going against the intent, but still legally gray area, is imo malicious compliance because it circumvents what the license was intended to solve in the first place.

But that’s all i really care to add to this convo, since my initial comment my intent was just to say that the AGPLv3 license does not stop corporations from getting free stuff and being able to charge for it-- especially documentation. Have a good one

No. I said even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license [by making the open sourced code unusable without the backend code or some other means outside of scope of this conversation] then they can charge for it.

The malicous part is in brackets in the above paragraph. The license is an OSI approved license that allows commercialization, it would be stupid for me to call that malicious.

Nothing. The context of this comment thread is “fuck corporations” and then proposing AGPL to solve that. I am merely pointing out that if their goal is to have a non-commercial license then AGPL doesn’t solve that, which is why i mention they can charge for their services with AGPL.

AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it’s being run on a server.

In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.

As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don’t think is really a barrier to use for documentation.

It would be much more customer and developer friendly to allow linking a service portal instead of providing a phone number. I would go insane if a user called me directly every time one of my projects had a bug or some perceived (non)issue. No, that’s not how this works.

Kebab or snake for ease of parsing through them.

Either i wasn’t clear or you are replying to the wrong person, but i am in support of foss projects asking for donations in a reasonable manor such as this

There is an option to disable it permanently. Otherwise it is once a year and easily dismissed

It’s once per year, easily dismissed, and can be permanently disabled. Seems entirely reasonable for a piece of free software that someone would use everyday

And if you want a private repo, you can also use gitlab and point to custom domain with gitlab pages or cloudflare pages.

The first part of the article talks about how to use git notes and has an example commit, followed by adding the note, and then viewing the note. This is all native git.

The “problem” is that we have centralized discussions in github/gitlab comments and if we want to retain that data then we need to convert the comments into gitnotes. The CLI part is that specific discussion on how Symfony uses git notes to store github comments. It references an internal CLI but then goes through an example of how to use github api to fetch the comments, create git notes, then push those git notes to github. So while the symfony CLI is internal, it looks like we’re given an example of how to do this for github.

Thanks! I’ll add that to my list to check out

If you only ever keep your repository private AND it is not a fork of a public repo, then you are fine. Full stop.

If you ever fork the repo and make a “INTERNAL” private fork but move the main project public then anything you commit to the private fork will be discoverable through the public project.

Basically you should assume if you make a repo public then the repo and all of its forks will be public-- even if the forks are “private” the commit data can be found through the main repo.

The original report: https://trufflesecurity.com/blog/anyone-can-access-deleted-and-private-repo-data-github

Well to speak of the obvious- open source. I’ve heard good things about obsidian but i am not trusting a closed source app with my notes/ mind-maps

This project looks pretty promising, and is open source.

Pull request aka merge request. Part of the approval process to add/ update code in a repository