~sircmpwn

Philadelphia, PA

https://drewdevault.com

I write code.

~sircmpwn/sr.ht-announce

Last active 57 minutes ago

~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

Last active an hour ago

~sircmpwn/alpine-aports

Last active 6 hours ago

~sircmpwn/aerc

Last active 7 hours ago

~sircmpwn/sr.ht-ops

Last active 14 hours ago

~sircmpwn/email-test-drive

Last active a day ago

~sircmpwn/alpine-devel

Last active a day ago

~sircmpwn/sr.ht-admins

Last active a day ago

~sircmpwn/public-inbox

Last active 3 days ago

~sircmpwn/aerc-announce

Last active 3 days ago
View more

Recent activity

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service a day ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Sat May 30, 2020 at 9:35 AM EDT, Jon Fineman wrote:
> Did you envision classifying public code repositories differently than
> public files for hosting web sites or maybe having other web sites point
> to the assets stored in sr.ht?

For your personal website, you could use a creative commons license,
which offers lots of flexibility to you in how strict or lenient the
distribution terms are. The most strict is CC-BY-ND-NC, which prohibits
derivative works and commercial use, and requires attribution.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Fri May 29, 2020 at 12:03 PM EDT, Malcolm Matalka wrote:
> Would it be against policy for me to run an external public project
> directory that people can submit unlisted projects, so they can work
> around the license restriction?
>
> Similarly, would it be against policy to create a public project that
> contains links to unlisted projects (like the "awesome-blah" repose that
> exist for topics) that do not have licenses that reflect public project
> requirements?

This would definitely be against the spirit of the terms, and would
likely make me rethink the exception for unlisted projects.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Fri May 29, 2020 at 5:05 AM EDT, Sam Whited wrote:
> What about repos that are not actually copyrightable? For example, I
> maintain a list of folk dances (some that I have written, some by other
> callers). In the U.S. at least these are not copyrightable even if
> you're the author of the dance, so a license like CC would not apply.

We can probably make an exception for works which are not copyrightable
in the US. I've also been thinking about adding an exception for the US
Public Domain, so that works of the US government could be hosted here.
SourceHut is a US entity, so it's from that context that such exceptions
would have to be made.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Fri May 29, 2020 at 7:23 AM EDT,  wrote:
> To further expand on this point: what if I want a public repo but don't
> know or care about proper licensing my grandma's pancake recipes or
> helloworlds in lisp?

I agree with earlier comments: it's not especially burdensome to ask you
to drop CC-0 next to 'ma's receipes, or MIT with the helloworlds.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Fri May 29, 2020 at 4:52 AM EDT, Zachary King wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on this point.
>
> You can't restrict what a user can do on a platform and say it is
> increasing their freedom. That doesn't mean that it is wrong or
> shouldn't be done, but you can't do one thing and call it another.

I don't want to get into the weeds on this, but by requiring all public
projects to use a FOSS license, it increases the freedom of *everyone
else* by making sure that any project they see on sr.ht is something
they can use under terms they understand.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Fri May 29, 2020 at 2:41 AM EDT, Simon Ser wrote:
> Maybe that's a minor point, but what would be the recommended solution
> for "less important" repos like dotfiles? It would be annoying to have
> a LICENSE file lying around in ~, or to add a license header to all
> files. I suppose these repos could be unlisted, but that would be a
> hack to just workaround the rule.

Maybe we could have a UI for declaring the license out-of-band. It is
useful to have a license for dotfiles, too, for example if someone wants
to repurpose one or your user scripts or incorporate your custom theme
upstream.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

The Unlicense is permitted under these terms. The specific criteria for
licenses allowed from this list is "any license which is not marked as
'nonfree'".

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Fri May 29, 2020 at 2:24 AM EDT, Malcolm Matalka wrote:
> Responding on "open core" section even though my point is more general.
>
> Personally, I would like to see more of a rational behind this change.
> The usual contract I am used to is roughly: I give you money, you serve
> my bits. With restrictions on my bits not harming your business. These
> changes really push your beliefs on me, which I do not support. I would
> be OK with this if the public repositories were free repositories, but
> since I'm paying, I expect to be able to run my business how I want on a
> paid services with obvious restrictions around abuse.

Paying for the service does not entitle you to any particular kind of
service; you can always choose not to pay. The core mission of SourceHut
is to support and improve the free and open source software ecosystem -

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Thu May 28, 2020 at 8:22 PM EDT, Sam Whited wrote:
> May I ask, the way this response was phrased sounded like you've already
> made up your mind and asking was just a formality? If so fair enough, I
> just wanted to provide feedback like you asked.

No, I haven't made up my mind, and I am receptive to feedback. I'm just
saying that negative feedback from a few people was expected, and is not
the only criteria which will make the decision.

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 2 days ago

From Drew DeVault to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Thu May 28, 2020 at 8:06 PM EDT, Sam Whited wrote:
> I don't want them to be open source because I don't want them
> redistributed or because I'm not sure what if anything I'm going to do
> with them yet. I may open source them in the future, or I may not.
> However, I may still end up wanting them to be public.

Then I'm afraid you would have no recourse under these terms. Not
everyone is going to come away happy here, I am well aware that some
users are not going to find these changes tolerable.

> Another example I just thought of is Go libraries we maintain at work: a
> number of them aren't open source, but Go code has to be public to be
> redistributed (ie so that go get can fetch the repos). If I wanted to do
> something similar with a proprietary Go library, I couldn't do this on