They're not saying they violated the license, they're saying they're assholes. It may not be illegal to say you'll do something for free and then not do it, but it's assholish, especially if you said it to gain customers.
They gave code for free, under open source, but you call them assholes if they do not release more code for free. So who is the asshole here? You or them?
Continued updates is not and never has been a part of FOSS, either implicitly or explicitly, you simply have a misconception. FOSS allows you to change the software. That's what it has always meant.
There's no broken promise though. It's the users who decide+assume, on their own going in, that X project is good for their needs and they'll have access to future versions in a way they're comfortable with. The developers just go along with the decision+assumption, and may choose to break it at any point. They'd only be assholes if they'd explicitly promised the project would unconditionally remain Y for perpetuity, which is a bs promise nobody should listen to, cuz life.
I think this is where the problem/misunderstanding is. There's no "I will do/release" in OSS unless promised explicitly. Every single release/version is "I released this version. You are free to use it". There is no implied promise for future versions.
Released software is not clawed back. Everyone is free to modify(per license) and/or use the released versions as long as they please.
I'm noticing this argument a lot these days, and I think it stems from something I can't define - "soft" vs. "hard" or maybe "high-trust" vs "low-trust".
I always warned people that if they "buy" digital things (music, movies) it's only a license, and can be taken away. And people intellectually understand that, but don't think it'll really happen. And then years go by, and it does, and then there's outrage when Amazon changes Roald Dahl's books, or they snatch 1984 right off your kindle after you bought it.
So there's a gap between what is "allowed" and what is "expected". I find this everywhere in polite society.
Was just talking to a new engineer on my team, and he had merged some PRs, but ignored comments from reviewers. And I asked him about that, and he said "Well, they didn't block the PR with Request Changes, so I'm free to merge." So I explained that folks won't necessarily block the PR, even though they expect a response to their questions. Yes, you are allowed to merge the PR, but you'll still want to engage with the review comments.
I view open source the same way. When a company offers open source code to the community, releasing updates regularly, they are indeed allowed to just stop doing that. It's not illegal, and no one is entitled to more effort from them. But at the same time, they would be expected to engage responsibly with the community, knowing that other companies and individuals have integrated their offering, and would be left stranded. I think that's the sentiment here: you're stranding your users, and you know it. Good companies provide a nice offramp when this happens.
Customers are the ones that continue to pay. If they continue to pay they will likely receive maintenance from the devs. If they don't, they are no longer or never have been customers.
It would be interesting to see if there could be a sustainable OSS model where customers are required to pay for the product, and that was the only way to get support for it as well.
Even if the source was always provided (and even if it were GPL), any bug reports/support requests etc. would be limited to paying customers.
I realize there is already a similar model where the product/source itself is always free and then they have a company behind it that charges for support... but in those cases they are almost always providing support/accepting bug reports for free as well. And maybe having the customer pay to receive the product itself in the first place, might motivate the developers to help more than if they were just paying for a support plan or something.
Well, I think this is what SchedMD do with Slurm? GPL code. You can sign up to the bug tracker & open an issue, but if you don't have a support contract they close the issue. And only those customers get advanced notice of CVEs etc. I'd expect nearly everyone who uses it in production has a support contract.
This is no pressure. You can exert pressure by saying that you are cancelling the transaction because of the tipping screen and you'll eat somewhere else.
You could tell them that you are very happy to pay them the price they printed on the menu and that they can present you with a payment terminal charging exactly that price, but that you will not do that job for them. Basically make the waiter select the 0% option.
But in the end you'll only annoy the waiter and not the owner of the restaurant who is actually running the tipping scam.
At least in that case you can safely select a 0 tip. It's worse when you pay up front and have to worry about a lower than expected tip resulting in some kind of retribution from the staff.
Yeah that's not possible. When you're presented with the terminal the food is already in your system.
Or maybe you can be like our former Ministry of Culture, Jack Lang, who just resigned from a prestigious, if useless, post in the wake of the Epstein scandal. It was revealed that he never paid for anything in his 60+ years of public "service", always leaving restaurants, hotels, etc. without footing the bill.
For you and me, this would be called stealing and would eventually land us in jail. But if you're a minister in France it's called "living like a prince" and being "a little stingy".
It is illegal. They're counting on you to be too busy to sue them. That's why you only saw it in a train station. Ask your bank for a refund for the fraudulent transaction — you probably don't have enough evidence to prove it happened, but they'll still put the complaint on file.
Lawsuits and chargebacks are about the only pressure businesses have not to scam you.
Tipping is one of those Moloch coordination problems where if everyone would suddenly decide to make the world better at the same time, it would be, but if only a few people try to make the world better, it gets worse and they're assholes.
It's really not a binary situation where you'd ever see $2 wages with no tips though. If less people tip then the effective real minimum wage will gradually increase to compensate - either because laws are updated or because the restaurant has to compete with other better paying job opportunities. Sure some waiters may get upset when someone doesn't tip, but that is just that - them getting upset - and not the client being an asshole.
So they charge you for an amount different to advertised? Tell your bank. You might get a refund and at least they'll have the complaint on file so the next victim might get a refund. If enough people complain and AirBNB don't fix it, AirBNB gets banned from accepting cards.
And with Elon Musk! If he says we're going to Mars, then we're going to Mars. If he says full self driving next year, we're getting full self driving next year. He said that every year for 10 years? So what?
It is expensive. But the point where it stops being expensive is far above most companies use case. If you're paying less than a developers salary for hosting you most likely won't see all that many benefits from moving.
Renting a server from cheaper hosting providers can be massive savings but you now need to re-invent all of the AWS APIs you use or might use and it's big CAPEX time investment. And any new feature you need, whether that's queue, mail gateway or thousand other APIs need to be deployed and managed first before you can even start testing.
It's less work now than it was before just due to amount of tools there are to automate it but it's still more work that you could be spending on improving your product.
Agreed. Some threads make the suggestion you replied to and seemingly fail to ignore the reality of business. Not all businesses want to insource all problems.
> but you now need to re-invent all of the AWS APIs you use or might use and it's big CAPEX time investment
Or maybe you just never needed most of these in the first place. People got into this "AWS" mentality like it is the only way to do things. Everything had to be in a queue, event driven etc.
I'd argue not using AWS means simplifying things and it'll be less expensive not just in server cost but developer time.
You don't get how this works. You buy in AWS because everyone else is , so it's expected. It diffuses risk to your stock options. This also begets a whole generation of people who can only use cloud services so now you are more hard pressed to find people with experience to run things without the cloud. You also create a bigger expenses sheet so it shows you're investing and growing, attracting more investors. "We pay 10 mil in AWS , we're that big". It's classic perverse incentives feeding into a monoculture.
20. "ask someone else’s homeserver to replicate media" -> also fixed by authenticated media
21. "media uploads are unverified by default" - for E2EE this is very much a feature; running file transfers through an antivirus scanner would break E2EE. (Some enterprisey clients like Element Pro do offer scanning at download, but you typically wouldn't want to do it at upload given by the time people download the AV defs might be stale). For non-encrypted media, content can and is scanned on upload - e.g. by https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse-spamcheck-badlist
22. "all it takes is for one of your users to request media from an undesirable room for your homeserver to also serve up copies of it" - yes, this is true. similarly, if you host an IMAP server for your friends, and one of them gets spammed with illegal content, it unfortunately becomes your problem.
In terms of "invisible events in rooms can somehow download abusive content onto servers and clients" - I'm not aware of how that would work. Clients obviously download media when users try to view it; if the event is invisible then the client won't try to render it and won't try to download the media.
Nowadays many clients hide media in public rooms, so you have to manually click on the blurhash to download the file to your server anyway.
reply