Thanks, yeah looks like they are wanting to build on their own reader app.

https://elevenlabs.io/blog/omnivore-joins-elevenlabs

Everyone has a hobby 🙃

So are they somehow able to relicense by buying off the contributors? Or does Eleven Labs intend to host/use something under AGPLv3? Just trying to figure out what their plan is and how they’re dealing with it being open source

+1 for gitlab. You can programmatically generate a csv file that can be used to generate issue(s) which support markdown format. Then your checklists could be issues and marked as completed when done.

You could also for instance set up a weekly pipeline schedule to generate issue(s) from the csv if some of the issues are needed on an interval.

If gitlab isn’t an option then id still look into generating the .md files this way and finding a home for the .md files that works for your user(s)

Appreciate it, i wasn’t familiar with the project and didn’t see that!

I don’t see a CLA so this is somewhat surprising that all ~30 contributors would be okay moving away from open source.

Unless this was a unilateral decision

And it makes no mention that they were modifying and using GPL code prior to making their code “open source”.

Id argue that this story is not over until the GPL code can be confirmed removed by a third party

There are much smaller projects that ask for more from commits/merge messages. This is a normal ask

Wait, if they suspended your domain, can you even transfer it away? if not, that’s really fucking scary.

Njalla takes ownership of every domain purchased on their platform. They do let you transfer domains to another registrar where you could be the owner if your account is in good standing but seems like that may not be the case here (since account suspended)

That may be great for some domain use cases but for most stuff it would be better to have your name on the domain registration

Gitea, took control away from community and gave it to a for profit organization. Forgejo was born

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

The article mentions that the letter indicated intent to petition with the USPTO to cancel the Javascript trademark due to abandonment. Hopefully that is successful since that seems to be the best outcome short of Oracle willingly forfeiting it.

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

I use my IDE for basic things, but anything more involved i use git directly. It’s really not as intimidating as it’s made out to be. I’m no expert by any means but i know enough to get around and read the docs when i need help

Open source is generally understood as libre, and an OSI approved license.

I think you’re thinking of source-available.

Additional reading: https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-source-available/

Anyway, thanks for the list!

From what i can tell there are no transaction fees for sponsorships from personal accounts, and organizations pay 6% (or 3% if invoicing). (Source)

Is there something else I’m not seeing?

The whole idea to check the donations came from stumbling upon this post which discussed costs per user. Even $1/mo is quite a bit more than the average user cost. So $2 isn’t so measly when putting it into that perspective!

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.