I don’t use SwiftKey, just tested it because you shared a tool for doing it and claimed it was able to subvert Android permissions.
You probably didn’t actually disable the permission – like I said, the idea that an app could get around system-level permissions like that, in a way you could plainly observe would be headline news. It would be astounding that you somehow uncovered something that massive.
Does sqlite read-only access still work when the disk is full? Would be bad if your history tool prevented shell access when you need to delete something if your disk fills up. Also not sure how fsynced access might slow down debugging of I/O starvation issues (when you want your shell to run from memory mostly).
The point was more if atuin breaks your shell under those circumstances so you can not fix the full disk. Sqlite usually writes some transaction file before it does anything, doesn’t it?
Syncing shell history between machines seems like an incredibly bad idea considering how many commands are specific to one host and not having all the commands from other hosts in the history makes it so much easier to find them again in the history. Maybe I am thinking about this too much from a cross-platform and server viewpoint though.
You can though search, hit TAB, and then do edits to the line before executing. That is pretty handy if it is something complex across a few machines with a specific change.
Yeah, but lets say I have two servers, one hosts matomo.foo.com and the other hosts matomo.bar.com and I want to update each of those for the second time (the commands are already in the history from last time), with sync I would have to pay much more attention to get the correct commands from the history when I recall the commands for upgrading the database in the correct vhost dir for each (some php matomo.php core:upgrade or similar invocation using a script in the vhost dir), especially when it is mixed in with commands from 50 other servers.
Or lets say I run some dangerous command on the dev server (DROP DATABASE), without sync I can never accidentally use it from the history on the live server.
If the license you use is reallu permissive, it does not forbid the change to more restricted (copyleft). You also can use separate licences for code and resourses.
I was worried about possibly needing to change license.
I’d rather ask the contributors to consent to licensing their code under the new license. You don’t need the copyright in the hand of one entity to change license, it’s enough if all copyright holders agree.
The situation is made seemingly complicated by the possible need to use copylefted images
WDYM by “images”?
As in art assets? I’m not sure those would even be infectious. I think it’s possible to even use non-free assets in a GPL’d application. It may be better to treat them as such to keep the licensing simple though.
Even then, it’s usually possible to “upgrade” permissively licensed code (such as Apache 2.0) to a copyleft license as long as the original license’s conditions are still met which usually involves denoting which parts of the code is also available under the permissive license.
If you want that, you’ll get fewer contributors, but just make that explicitly clear in your pull request template.
Personally, I would never contribute to a project where the maintainer demanded I transfer copyright ownership of my contributions. I also wouldn’t use a project that did that, and would advise other people to not use that project either.
I understand the philosophy of not wanting to transfer your rights, but I don’t understand what’s bad about contributing to a project and having your code given to the community (as-in copyright transfer to the organisation). Would this be because the org/owner can just start selling the code or is there something that I’m missing?
It would mean that the owner could take that code and make it closed source. They could do literally anything they wanted with it, because they would own the copyright.
They can’t make it closed source retroactively (well, technically you can design a license like that but that’s a different discussion and the most widely used open source licenses aren’t made like that). They can relicense at some point going forward, but all the code up to that point would still be available under the old license and contributors could fork and continue without batting an eye.
It depends on what license the project is using. Some licenses are very permissive, meaning there’s lots of ways they can be abused. For example with MIT/BSD licenses there’s no provision to share the code with the final product so they could drag their feet releasing parts of the code or hide them altogether. They could also resort to tivoization, NDAs, commercial plugins and all kinds of shenanigans.
Look for example to the Plex and Emby projects which were originally open and went commercial later. The way they did it is why there’s a lot of bad blood in the community to this day.
I’ve also personally been involved with other projects where someone tried to take them commercial in a less than graceful way, shall we say. It’s never pretty.
I’m sure there is a way to make signing the CLA part of the pull request process on Github. I’ve been asked to do it. Not sure how Github works nowadays, maybe it was part of Github or an external bot.
And I don’t agree with the other people here. I think having complete copyright makes some things easier. And if you do an open project, maintain it for years, do 99% of the work… You’re allowed being paid with the contributions.
Mind there are other licenses than just the GPL. You could just pick a MIT license / Apache / BSD instead and maybe you don’t need the contributors to sign over their copyright anymore, because these licenses cover pretty much everything and transfer it to everyone, including you.
I’d really advise against forcing all code contributions to be copyrighted to you. It doesn’t send a great message to contributors. It also gets murky if any libraries are used.
Search for copyright assignment agreements, there are a few good template documents. I’d request a signed document instead of simply stating it in the PR. In all cases I would recommend verifying the document and process by a lawyer before you start using it.
Also, I would consider not requiring copyright assignment if at all possible for the project in question.
opensource
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.