| 16 Apr 2025 |
 emily | (licence is wrong btw) | 14:30:59 |
| emily | it looks like you haven't set cargoRoot on the fetchCargoVendor, I think that may be required | 14:31:43 |
 @aloisw:julia0815.de | The rustPlatform.cargoSetupHook is missing too. | 14:33:00 |
| emily | oh | 14:33:11 |
 hexa | oops | 14:33:21 |
| emily | that's probably the main issue, yes | 14:33:22 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | Well one of the issues, the build still fails with the hook present but with a different error. | 14:33:49 |
| emily | "A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that: … substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available" I like how they get to rugpull by starting a competing service that copies your product. | 14:34:27 |
| hexa | yeah, I found https://open.sentry.io/licensing/ pretty reasonable | 14:36:39 |
| hexa | given the territory of unfree licensing | 14:37:03 |
| hexa | and given that they came from bsl | 14:37:25 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
"A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that: … substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available" I like how they get to rugpull by starting a competing service that copies your product. Doesn't that exists as of the date we make the Software available mean that they cannot rugpull? | 14:41:33 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | (of course I do not know how that behaves with respect to updates) | 14:41:59 |
| emily | right I don't mean that the licence itself is revocable (that would be beyond the pale). just that they can clone your product and then the next day you can't apply a security fix. IOW they can rugpull the software-over-time rather than a specific artefact, which is what most people care about.
compare with the usual anti-competition licence clause that's more like "you can't offer this specific software as SaaS" without exposing you to the unbounded growing portfolio of the company | 14:45:03 |
| emily | (I just find it more eyebrow-raising because it means they can AWS your FOSS all they want despite drafting a licence to stop you doing so with their software) | 14:46:02 |
| emily | anyway, unlikely to be much concrete risk in practice for most users of course. | 14:46:26 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | Right, that's what is not clear to me, does "the Software" include security fixes or is every new patch a new "Software"? | 14:46:41 |
| emily | well, really it's more like: usually getting AWS'd doesn't mean you have to shut down your version | 14:47:12 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | In any case I'm really tired of these "look at how much worse we were before, sure that's reasonable now" arguments (not limited to software licensing btw). | 14:47:22 |
| emily |
The "Software" is each version of the software that we make available under these Terms and Conditions, as indicated by our inclusion of these Terms and Conditions with the Software.
I'd assume that "any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available" means when they make each specific version available
| 14:48:04 |
| emily | that's generally how licence text is drafted (e.g. nobody interprets MIT's "the Software" as offering you a continued permissive licence after they change the licence they release versions under) | 14:48:42 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
The "Software" is each version of the software that we make available under these Terms and Conditions, as indicated by our inclusion of these Terms and Conditions with the Software.
I'd assume that "any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available" means when they make each specific version available
"each version of the software that we make available under these Terms and Conditions" in aggregate or each separately? | 14:49:25 |
| emily | right, it is not totally unambiguous, but I think "as indicated by our inclusion … with the Software" makes it clear. | 14:49:54 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | (and MIT does not have that verbiage) | 14:50:08 |
| emily | since obviously it is not intended to licence versions of the Software after they change to the Dysfunctional Source License. | 14:50:13 |
| emily | so therefore the "Software" must be an individual version. | 14:50:26 |
