I run a website that showcases the best open-source companies. Recently, I’ve added a new feature that filters self-hosted tools and presents them in a searchable format. Although there are other options available, like Awesome-Selfhosted, I found it difficult to find what I needed there, so I decided to display the information in a more digestible format.
The Free Software Foundation requires “CLAs” as well. I have no fear that they’re going to rug-pull. I don’t think we can use that as the indicator. IMO, it’s even a good idea to have a CLA so that’s no conflict that the project owns the code.
The warning for me is if the project is run by a company, especially a VC-backed company. Joplin isn’t, so I would be comfortable using it (although I don’t).
only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
So it seems like the FSF does this in order to be able to enforce GPL. Buuut, these guys really gotta be the exception. I feel like the probability of the FSF selling out and going full corporate evil is pretty low…
a good idea to have a CLA so that’s no conflict that the project owns the code.
That’s exactly the problem though. The project owning the code, instead of the contributors owning the code.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
Rules:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
The Free Software Foundation requires “CLAs” as well. I have no fear that they’re going to rug-pull. I don’t think we can use that as the indicator. IMO, it’s even a good idea to have a CLA so that’s no conflict that the project owns the code.
The warning for me is if the project is run by a company, especially a VC-backed company. Joplin isn’t, so I would be comfortable using it (although I don’t).
Interesting! I didn’t realize this! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
So it seems like the FSF does this in order to be able to enforce GPL. Buuut, these guys really gotta be the exception. I feel like the probability of the FSF selling out and going full corporate evil is pretty low…
That’s exactly the problem though. The project owning the code, instead of the contributors owning the code.