Fixed! BSL (to my understanding) is a copy of the license and its a 'hashicorp document' so it had their title on it.
However, someone earlier today put me onto the concept of AGPL licenses so I changed MIRA over to AGPL because it still aligns with my overall intent of protecting my significant effort from someone coming in and Flappy Bird-ing it while still making it freely available to anyone who wants to access, modify, anything it.
We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a closed source business licence. Just with different names.
(As I said above I changed to an AGPL earlier today but I'll speak to my BSL logic)
I liked BSL because the code ~was~ proprietary for a time so someone couldn't duplicate my software I've worked so hard on, paywall it, and put me out of business. I'm a one-man development operation and a strong gust of wind could blow me over. I liked BSL because it naturally decayed into a permissive open source license automatically after a timeout. I'd get a head start but users could still use it and modify it from day one as long as they didn't charge money for it.
Totally fair - but just call it Source Available then.
Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition.
Stating it is open source creates a bait and switch effect with people who understand this definition, get excited, then realize this project is not actually open source.
Could you please stop that? First it is not true. "Open Source" has nothing to do with the "Open Source Initiative" it existed long before. Second you are making people keep their source closed (not available) which is not a good thing.
"Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition."
To be fair, this wouldn't be an issue if Open Source stuck with "Debian Free Software". If you really want to call it a bait and switch, open source did it first.
Meta leading the charge. Tencent just tried to do it this week. People need to to call them on it and AI ‘influencers’ never do, quite the opposite actually
I'm not seeing the justification for this comment. If anything that license, like the BSL, is aimed at keeping the small guy who worked on X in business so they can profit from their work (always need to put food on the table) while also sharing its innards with the world.
If you’re able to self host and run the tool for any use, it’s effectively a free, extensible, modifiable software solution.
Copyleft licenses are as restrictive as the license DHH put out with Fizzy. I’m an Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing OSS advocate myself, but it’s difficult to argue that it’s worse or equal to a fully closed SaaS solution.
It’s not even remotely close to one of these bullshit “ee” OSS licenses
Open source has an accepted and well understood meaning to developers; when people use the term to mean something other than that, it is 100% of the time for exploitative purposes, and they know they are being disingenuous.
I've used the term for 25+ years to describe my own source-included free software projects, and I'll thank you (and OSI) for not policing my language. No trademark? No standing. Choose other crusades.
Overreaction much? Nobody is policing. Your failure to recognize the meaning of a word - like any other - is just going to harm you due to your own ignorance of its ramifications.
(Shrug) As you will note at the top of the thread, williamstein is policing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the policeman has no badge, no gun, and no uniform, and that their cruiser looks suspiciously like a '92 Crown Victoria with black and white spray paint and a spotlight from Cabela's.
When you combine two words into a fundamentally novel phrase, you are not expressing an opinion, you are contributing to the global (or in this case, anglophone) dictionary.
So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have your own idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?
Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic.
Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
Be that as it may, it's a generic phrase, as evinced by its prior usage in other fields like intelligence and journalism. Lacking a trademark, OSI has zero authority to word-police everyone else. No amount of plugging their ears and chanting lalalala will change the fact that OSI does not own exclusive rights to the phrase "open source." Not with respect to software, not with respect to anything else.
The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.
"Steal" and "child" likewise lack any trademark protection.
So, suppose I accuse you of stealing from children, then when you protest, I
reply that the meaning I give those 2 words might not be the meaning most people have, but that is fine because no one owns the exclusive rights to those 2 words.
Their new CLI agent tool [1] is written in Python unlike similar agents from Anthropic/Google (Typescript/Bun) and OpenAI (Rust). It also appears to have first class ACP support, where ACP is the new protocol from Zed [2].
This is exactly the CLI I'm referring to, whose name implies it's for playing around with "vibe-coding", instead of helping professional developers produce high quality code. It's the opposite of what I and many others are looking for.
I think that's just the name they picked. I don't mind it. Taking a glance at what it actually does, it just looks like another command line coding assistant/agent similar to Opencode and friends. You can use it for whatever you want not just "vibe coding", including high quality, serious, professional development. You just have to know what you're doing.
For example, https://github.com/williamstein/nats-bugs/issues/5 links to a discussion I have with them about data loss, where they fundamentally don't understand that their incorrect defaults lead to data loss on the application side. It's weird.
I got very deep into using NATS last year, and then realized the choices it makes for persistence are really surprising. Another horrible example if that server startup time is O(number of streams), with a big constant; this is extremely painful to hit in production.
I ended up implementing from scratch something with the same functionality (for me as NATS server + Jetstream), but based on socket.io and sqlite. It works vastly better for my use cases, since socketio and sqlite are so mature.
codex-cli is a neat example of an open source Rust program that uses Landlock to run commands that an LLM comes up with when writing code (see [1]). The model is that a user trusts the agent program (codex-cli), but has much more limited trust of the commands the remote LLM asks codex-cli to run.
Water jets that clean the mop heads, not the full vacuum. Ecovacs have a different system that also automatically cleans the mop heads, so it's not a unique feature.
If I hired a software developer a few years ago, I might expect them to do roughly what Claude Code does today on some task (?). If I hired a dev today I would expect much more from them than what Claude Code can currently do.
Isn't a big part of it knowing what to ask Claude Code - for example I wanted some code to brighten/darken my buttons on mouseover, I asked Claude to make some code to do that, it was a bit wrong, I fixed it. I integrated the code and tested it. Now I know how to do all this, because I've been doing it for years, I could have done it without Claude but it saved me a bit of time.
Now there are a few things I see that affect this
1. The only way Claude knew how to do this is because there was a stack of existing code, but its probably in C, so you could regard Claude as an expert programming language translator.
2. There is no way that Claude could integrate this into my current code base
3. Claude can't create anything new
4. It's often very wrong, and the bigger/more complex the code is, the wronger it gets.
So, what are the areas that Claude excels? it seems that CRUD web app/Web front end is the sweet spot? (not really sure about this - I don't do much web front end work). I write graphics Apps and Claude is handy for those things you'd have to look up and spend some time on, but thats about all.
An example - I asked it to make me some fancy paint brush code (to draw in a painterly style), this is hard, the code that it made was pretty bad, it just used very basic brush styles, and when pressed it went into crazy land.
So my point is - if something exists and its not too hard, Claude is great, if you want something large and complex, then Claude can be a good helper. I really don't see how it can replace a good dev, there are a lot of code monkeys around gluing web sites together that could be replaced but even then they are probably the same people who are vibe coding now.
If you really want some fun ask them to draw a circuit diagram for a simple amplifier, it's almost painful watching them struggle.
reply