ssddanbrown

I've noticed growing use of similar options in the UK already, like Payit and truelayer (often shown in checkout via "Pay by bank"). Ebay and Whetherspoons are examples of places providing these options.

RSI here is for "recursive self-improvement", instead of a harness being built to help users with repetitive strain injury like I first thought when reading the post title

> Open Printer is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

So not open source.

Because the code is not provided under a free/open-source license, and therefore does not meet the requirements for the main F-droid repo.

> Many of the main authors of the Git source code are friends of mine and I have no intention to steal anything from anyone, only to make their great ideas more broadly useful.

By working-around/subverting the terms they provided their contributions under? While you claim to be doing this in good faith, and state "it's what's best for the broader Git ecosystem", that's all based on your own opinion which appears to ignore the benefits and intent of licenses such as the GPL.

Out of interest, Would you be happy for someone to do the same with the GitButler source code? (Feed it through an LLM and re-publish the result under an MIT license with different branding)

I can understand that viewpoint. Ultimately though, audience/growth is not a core success metric for me, and the values/points explained in the blog post are more important. Plus there's a factor of wanting to help de-centralise away from GitHub, and help provide momentum to alternatives.

Looking at those who have starred the new Codeberg repo, at least 15 people are new today, and thus form part of a bigger audience on Codeberg.

BookStack maintainer here. Just to clarify on that, the GitHub repo will continue to be updated and mirror the Codeberg repo (including release tags/code) for the foreseeable future, it's just that I might stop specifically publishing GitHub release entries (details on the release tag) at some point to avoid the duplication of work.

I've been sustaining myself for a couple of years now on my open source project (BookStack). Still going in a positive direction.

Other than that, some that come to mind: Proxmox, Opnsense, SnipeIT, GitLab, Canonical, Codeweavers/wine, Plausible, Home-assistant/open-home-foundation/NabuCasa, FreeBSD Foundation, Laravel, Blender, Godot.

Within there is a whole mix of business plans, some offer hardware, some are open core, some offer related paid services, some offer hosting, some offer support etc...

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining and cross-linking!

I'm not sure, maybe they don't want to take a hard stance on the issue either way (to indicate how open source is defined on HN). Dang has been receptive to input and updated (what I believed to be) misrepresenting "open source" titles in the past though.

This post also seemed to be thrown off the front page for some reason.

I would argue it is possible to run a business and be sustainable on open source, it's just harder and is not so compatible with the growth that many want.

I don't have an issue with this kind of license being used where open source does not suit, but I don't think we should change/widen the definition of "open source" to suit the sustainability needs of those that open source isn't compatible with, at the impact of the freedoms and open rights it provides.

Additionally, this submission's title was changed from "Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Today" to "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"