▲ 499 ▼ Discord keeps walking into rakes, but TeamSpeak is thriving after 'incredible surge of new users' (www.pcgamer.com) submitted 8 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca 180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Seefern@piefed.social 6 points 8 months ago (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] paequ2@lemmy.today 15 points 8 months ago (6 children) One thing that worries me a little about fluxer is this: Finally, we can offer commercial licences to companies that want to run Fluxer internally without being bound by the AGPLv3 copyleft terms. This is enabled via a contributor-friendly CLA, but it doesn't create a separate "enterprise edition". It's still the same Fluxer software everyone else uses. https://blog.fluxer.app/how-i-built-fluxer-a-discord-like-chat-app/ They have a CLA on contributions. So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) EDIT: The Fluxer dev agreed to remove the CLA! Woah, didn't know about that, thanks for the heads up. That's definitely dampening my goodwill toward it. As an alternative, I'd suggest Movim, which has no CLA, and is already federated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) Hey, just wanted to give you an update that the Fluxer dev actually agreed to remove the CLA! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] paequ2@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago Holy fuck! Noice!!!! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children) So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing. Isn't that just a problem for contributors to worry about though? Like, it's not like they can remove (or change the license of) the code that's already out there (their CLA says existing source code releases stay licensed as-is), nor does this affect forks. So I don't really see the harm to the consumer. any distributed version that includes your contribution remains properly licensed under the project license(s) that applied when you contributed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) They can’t retroactively close-source the older versions released under AGPL, but if it ever required a community fork to continue the last release of the GPL version, it would be a massive burden to maintain it, and could cause federation to break as the codebase diverges over time, which would create a rift in the community. You’d also have to hope that average users care enough about the license to jump ship to the GPL (probably now not as full-featured) version, otherwise the GPL version risks not being able to get enough funding to continue, or enough users to convince the larger communities to move over. As a somewhat similar real world example, the pixel-art program Aseprite once used a FLOSS license, but it switched to a proprietary license at some point. The last GPL version was forked by the community, but it never got much traction, and is now massively behind the closed source version in features and userbase. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 15 points 8 months ago (6 children) One thing that worries me a little about fluxer is this: Finally, we can offer commercial licences to companies that want to run Fluxer internally without being bound by the AGPLv3 copyleft terms. This is enabled via a contributor-friendly CLA, but it doesn't create a separate "enterprise edition". It's still the same Fluxer software everyone else uses. https://blog.fluxer.app/how-i-built-fluxer-a-discord-like-chat-app/ They have a CLA on contributions. So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) EDIT: The Fluxer dev agreed to remove the CLA! Woah, didn't know about that, thanks for the heads up. That's definitely dampening my goodwill toward it. As an alternative, I'd suggest Movim, which has no CLA, and is already federated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) Hey, just wanted to give you an update that the Fluxer dev actually agreed to remove the CLA! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] paequ2@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago Holy fuck! Noice!!!! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children) So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing. Isn't that just a problem for contributors to worry about though? Like, it's not like they can remove (or change the license of) the code that's already out there (their CLA says existing source code releases stay licensed as-is), nor does this affect forks. So I don't really see the harm to the consumer. any distributed version that includes your contribution remains properly licensed under the project license(s) that applied when you contributed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) They can’t retroactively close-source the older versions released under AGPL, but if it ever required a community fork to continue the last release of the GPL version, it would be a massive burden to maintain it, and could cause federation to break as the codebase diverges over time, which would create a rift in the community. You’d also have to hope that average users care enough about the license to jump ship to the GPL (probably now not as full-featured) version, otherwise the GPL version risks not being able to get enough funding to continue, or enough users to convince the larger communities to move over. As a somewhat similar real world example, the pixel-art program Aseprite once used a FLOSS license, but it switched to a proprietary license at some point. The last GPL version was forked by the community, but it never got much traction, and is now massively behind the closed source version in features and userbase. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) EDIT: The Fluxer dev agreed to remove the CLA! Woah, didn't know about that, thanks for the heads up. That's definitely dampening my goodwill toward it. As an alternative, I'd suggest Movim, which has no CLA, and is already federated. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) Hey, just wanted to give you an update that the Fluxer dev actually agreed to remove the CLA! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] paequ2@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago Holy fuck! Noice!!!! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children) So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing. Isn't that just a problem for contributors to worry about though? Like, it's not like they can remove (or change the license of) the code that's already out there (their CLA says existing source code releases stay licensed as-is), nor does this affect forks. So I don't really see the harm to the consumer. any distributed version that includes your contribution remains properly licensed under the project license(s) that applied when you contributed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) They can’t retroactively close-source the older versions released under AGPL, but if it ever required a community fork to continue the last release of the GPL version, it would be a massive burden to maintain it, and could cause federation to break as the codebase diverges over time, which would create a rift in the community. You’d also have to hope that average users care enough about the license to jump ship to the GPL (probably now not as full-featured) version, otherwise the GPL version risks not being able to get enough funding to continue, or enough users to convince the larger communities to move over. As a somewhat similar real world example, the pixel-art program Aseprite once used a FLOSS license, but it switched to a proprietary license at some point. The last GPL version was forked by the community, but it never got much traction, and is now massively behind the closed source version in features and userbase. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) They can’t retroactively close-source the older versions released under AGPL, but if it ever required a community fork to continue the last release of the GPL version, it would be a massive burden to maintain it, and could cause federation to break as the codebase diverges over time, which would create a rift in the community. You’d also have to hope that average users care enough about the license to jump ship to the GPL (probably now not as full-featured) version, otherwise the GPL version risks not being able to get enough funding to continue, or enough users to convince the larger communities to move over. As a somewhat similar real world example, the pixel-art program Aseprite once used a FLOSS license, but it switched to a proprietary license at some point. The last GPL version was forked by the community, but it never got much traction, and is now massively behind the closed source version in features and userbase. permalink fedilink source parent