• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle







  • Right. I was focusing on the point that what matters is the copyright notice. While your pointing out that you can relicense MIT code because MIT is so permissive, while you can relicense GPL to almost nothing, as it’s not compatible with most other licenses. However that’s kinda moot, you couldn’t include GPL code into an MIT licensed project anyway due to the copyleft.

    (Thanks for the “ingenuous” correction, I did indeed - to my non-natively speaking brain the “in” acted as a negation to the default “genuous”, which yeah, just isn’t a thing of course)


  • Well yeah, that’s how licenses and copyright work - licenses can change. And sure on an adversary take-over (or corporate overloads taking control), that’s problematic. However the beauty is, it’s still MIT code: It can be forked (see what’s happening with redis). However a project copyright (and DCO) is not in place to enable just that, it’s in place to enable any license change by the project. Say a license is updated and there are good reasons for the project to move to the updated license - I think it’s pretty reasonable that the project would like to be able to do that and therefore retain copyright. Of course you are also free not to contribute such a project. However claiming it’s a license violation or unheard of is pretty disingenuous (formerly ingenious, thanks :) ).

    This has nothing to do with GPL or MIT: If you own copyright of a GPL licensed code-base, you can change that license at any time. Of course that only applies to new code. And that’s the same for GPL or MIT or any other license.




  • Looks like a federated wiki, which is great. And not a Wikipedia alternative. What makes wikipedia wikipedia is not the tech. Social and knowledge problems can’t be solved with tech ;)
    As much as Wikipedia has issues, as the ibis announcement states, it also works in many places. And federating it won’t help with the issues of bad moderation, quite the contrary. And as much as I like nutomic (thanks for syncthing-android ;) ), I don’t hear many good things about the lemmy moderation story. So I have my doubts. Lets hope I am wrong. Plus anyway, federated wikis is a great thing to have, ignoring the whole Wikipedia aspect.



  • This is an expected statistical artifact given the “last month” aggregation and a huge influx of new users of which many don’t stick around. I am saying they don’t stick around, because that’s generally just what happens with a lot of new users (e.g. they checked it out, decided it’s not for them) and also due to the federated nature they might have switched accounts and similar things. Then the bit about “last month” aggregation: Have a look at the “Active 6 months” graph - it’s still trending upwards. Those are likely a trailing average aggregations, so a maximum is reached when that 1-month-window starts (roughly) at the beginning of the huge user influx. For the 6-month window that hasn’t happened yet, so still going upwards. Assuming nothing changes (similar amount of new/leaving active users) the graphs gonna be interesting in the next few weeks: After the initial wave of influx the balance was most likely negative (more users from “the wave” dropping out again than added users afterwards), however I’d hope it’s gotten positive since then. If that’s the case the graph should start trending upwards 1 month after the balance became positive. It’s unclear when that was the case, but some towards end of July might be a reasonable guess? The same graph with a smaller window could shed some light on that (or just expose useless noise ¯_(ツ)_/¯ ).

    Another sign I’d consider good: The active user ratio is trending upwards.

    Disclaimer: I don’t know how the data is aggregated, nor how exactly “active” is defined - the gist of the above very likely applies though. I was too lazy to look it up in the code - if someone knew how these graphs are aggregated and were so kind to let me know, that’d be appreciated :)