astraluma @astraluma@cybre.space

Tired: me
Wired: my child

On the one hand, using requests means the best experience for contributors and users, while being the least effort for me, both short- and long-term.

On the other hand, kenneth reitz.

Today: ~nobody gets money.

Future: Everyone strong arms for money: ~nobody gets money, usage of open source drops to ~zero.

Open Source (or at least my kind of open source where I publish stuff into the void) has defined my life almost as much as software development in general has.

As much as I can't picture myself not writing code, I can't picture myself not doing open source.

Wow, my first open source project was some time in high school.

It's also one of the few projects with confirmed users.

So, to bring this around:

FOSS is valuable, as proven by the sheer amount of stuff that depends on numerous projects.

Licenses are the tool we have to determine users relationship with that value.

Permissive licenses let any company use the software for any purpose.

Including reselling, repackaging, and other exploitative things.

I'm personally not ok with this for the majority of my work. 5/5

I could make a long thread about the necessity of service- and infra-flavored licenses, but let's summarize:

Services are becoming more important every day.

If we believe in classical FOSS, users need continued access to the software they use, and they need to be able to run that software.

So they need both the service and how to deploy it.

Serverless heightens this. 4/

My biggest gripe with License Zero is that it has no variants for services (similar to the AGPL). As someone working on open CI, this is kind of a big thing for me.

My other wishlist items include separating use for commercial endeavours from reselling/productizing, and infracode.

By infracode, I mean configuration-as-code, where the source creates services, and opening it under a license that mandates users having access to that configuration. (Think Salt/Ansible/Puppet/Teraform/etc) 3/

The GPL family means that I can guarantee that no matter who adopts it, it'll remain open.

Combining my choice of license with alternate commercial is my preferred form going forward: You either participate in free software, publishing your version for the good of humanity, or you pay me (the developer) my due.

If this sounds familiar, you've seen License Zero. 2/

A ramble:

So, like, as generally a solitary or small-team developer who produces more than their fair share of FOSS, my copyright over my work is one of the few powers I have against corporations looking to exploit my work.

And we live in capitalism, that's a fact of life.

So, I consider my choice of license carefully depending on the project.

Using something like MIT/BSD means that I do not care, just go use it. 1/

permissive licenses give companies all the power and the developer no control.

Oh, I guess that's all the platform and infra I need to get going. I guess it's time to work on the actual app?

*deep breath*

I can do this. Yeah, I can totally do this. Go, do the thing, Astra.

gqlmod-cirrusci: the simplest thing, lovely example
gqlmod-github: here be dragons and dark magic

Also, having gotten this working makes me exceedingly happy.

Stuff like this is my goal as a developer tooling engineer.

Hm, Should I move gqlmod into it's own github org?

It's currently under the gobuild.it org. My next step is doing a github action version of the checker.

@fluffy sent!