Three streaming (like pointed in the other comment) was my initial reaction too, but indeed at the time https for streaming would be very rare.

Another possibility is to realize that openssl isn’t just for communication, but also has implementation of cryptographic algorithms.

Perhaps openssl was used for validation of licensing key? For example they could sign the license with their private key and WinAmp could verify it’s authenticity with its public key.

In some cases it works, in some it doesn’t. PostgreSQL for example for huge support after Oracle got control of MySQL, despite the license.

That’s not being centrist in today’s political landscape. This is basically where Democrats currently are.

Remember the border bill was shut down by Republicans.

If I had this requirement I would just generate a file of specific size, place it on one server and on the other I would have a shell script running via cron and measure the time it took to download the file.

It seems like a relatively simple problem.

BTW are you sure you want to test download speed and not latency? I think some routers might have the later built in.

I guess no one offered anything for .internal

Is that Mar-a-Lago?

For writing an application GPL is fine if you don’t want anyone to profit from your work and if they make changes, contribute back.

Things are a little bit more complex if you are writing a library or code that is meant to be included in another application.

If you use GPL you might get rejected even by other open source applications, as GPL might be understandable as it will change license off the application or be outright incompatible.

This was the case with cursor library after author changed license everyone stopped using it: https://github.com/GijsTimmers/cursor/commit/885156333ac9ca335a587b1dd08964074313f026

The most ironic thing is that he created package from stack overflow answer:

https://github.com/GijsTimmers/cursor/blob/master/cursor/cursor.py

The original author never said they are releasing copyright or are making it public domain.

This is not “perfect is enemy of good” it would be if I was arguing about MIT vs GPL etc.

By signing CLA you’re surrendering copyright to the company and this allows them do do whatever they wish with your contribution, including switching back to closed source.

Hashicorp was able to change license of their products exactly thanks to CLA.

Yes, thanks for pointing it out. As long as it is some organization that can’t be bought it should be fine. I didn’t included that because it makes my response more confusing.

Essentially CLA gives the entire copyright to specific entity and that entity in case of FSF it likely could use it for fighting violations, while some startup likely intends to change license when their product gets more popular to cash out on it (for example what Hashicorp did recently before selling to IBM)

They just want to get profit from the purchase but they are no longer competitive.

Looks like they are looking for suckers to contribute to their code base for free without even making it actually open source.

IMO at this point WinAmp does not offer anything beyond name recognition and nostalgia. Isn’t qmmp essentially an open source version of WinAmp?

I disagree.

CLA gives them total ownership of the code (all contributors are surrendering their copyright), and allows them to change license at any point in time, including making it closed source.

If you’re contributing code to a project with CLA you’re not contributing to Open Source, you’re working for a company for free.

Is it possible that the suggestions Windows is giving you don’t perceive them as ads?

Don’t you have any news, and other suggestions on the taskbar, lock screen etc? Also, are you in the EU?

In theory it isn’t mandatory, in practice you will see a lot of distros replacing it.

Like everything with Nix, you pay a little more upfront to get a great experience later.

There is a saying that if civil engineers would build houses the same way as software engineers build software, the first woodpecker would destroy the whole civilization.

In reality it is not easy to build good software and it can be fragile even with good practices. This approach allows anyone’s code merged without much supervision.

Another thing is (and I even noticed myself doing it, even though normally I think of myself as perfectionist) is that when one contributes a feature to a project that they don’t maintain. They just think only about the feature and the easiest way of implementing it, which isn’t necessarily the best way to implement something long term, adding complexity, makes harder to add more features and much easier to accidentally create bugs.

Third, preventing security vulnerabilities is hard even with good practices, someone could accidentally (or purposely) introduce a security vulnerability.

Hmm… the app is indeed a great sounding proposition.

After I posted it, I found another discussion where it looks like mbin policy is that anyone can merge anyone else’s PR.

As a software developer, that actually sounds really scary.

I guess I missed it. Why there was a need to fork kbin? Are there issues with it?

What about kbin (well it is connected with Lemmy, but technically it’s not Lemmy) and tildes.net?