Pagelove collapses the modern web stack into its simplest form: no databases, no APIs, no application servers. Just HTML that works like an app, scales like a CDN, and is AI-native by design.

The page becomes the application, API and persisted state. Humans and machines can read and update the same surface directly using CSS selectors over HTTP, rather than through separate HTML and API/MCP interfaces. With Pagelove, AI can finally build web applications without having to deal with the complexity of the full stack.

We’re seed-stage and well-funded, hiring our first non-founder engineer. The codebase is Rust, with work including distributed storage, HTTP caching/ETags, CRDTs, parser/DOM performance, CI and production infrastructure.

Our development process is heavily agentic: Claude Code and Codex do substantial implementation work, with humans focused on architecture, review and the hard problems.

https://ats.pagelove.com/roles/founding-software-engineer/

Item 2: Adopt a process for formal review of previously approved licenses

Item 3: Remove “code of silence” from Board Member Agreement

Item 4: Directors should be allowed to use FOSS for Board activities

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197159

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

OSI’s Continually Changing Election Story https://fossforce.com/2025/02/osis-changing-election-story/

It wouldn't matter anyway as they announced the deadline as 17 February, which would mean midnight local time by default (and should mean midnight AoE, especially for an organisations purporting to be concerned with openness).

Shared Platform for OSI Reform

Item 1. Repeal the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID)

Item 2. Adopt a process for formal review of previously approved licenses

Item 3. Remove “code of silence” from Board Member Agreement

Item 4. Directors should be allowed to use FOSS for Board activities

Which of these points are the OSI's current leadership so committed to blocking that they would make Luke's candidacy their hill to die on?

1. https://mas.to/@bkuhn@floss.social 2. https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform 3. https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2025/02/28/osi-board-election.htm...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42404819

Points: 3

# Comments: 3

The principles are the four essential freedoms of free software, and the one job the OSI had in implementation was to work out what had to be open to protect them.

Hint: it’s the data.

Like many of the objectors, I’ve been in Open Source since before there was Open Source or the OSI, and am now doing a masters specialising in ML while coding an AI OS. This is condescending BS from talking heads who don’t even claim to have AI expertise.

Meanwhile their chosen “co-design” process is literally the “Do Your Own Research (DYOR)” of technical standards:

“We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process.”

What a clown show. How do we get off this train?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41991058

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The OSI's position that ANY data is acceptable has shifted the Overton window of Open Source, and categorising it into open, public, obtainable, and unshareable non-public data, only to then accept all of them, is a form of doublespeak appearing to maintain openness while accommodating even the most restrictive data. We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Indeed, there are two dimensions to "Open" AI systems which "can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose" (per The Open Definition): openness, which is already well-covered by the Open Source Definition, and completeness, which is covered implicitly — after all, AI systems are software — but which would need to be specified in approved frameworks that could be self-applied like the MOF (were a new Class 0 to be created requiring open data licenses rather than "any license or unlicensed" like Class I).

In other words, the Open Source Definition (OSD) covers openness but not completeness (at least not explicitly, which is arguably a bug the community may want to fix in a future version so it covers both). The MOF covers completeness but not openness. The OSI's proposed OSAID covers neither, so any vendor using it to open-wash closed systems as Open Source AI rightly deserves ridicule as it is patently ridiculous.

I don't necessarily agree and suggest the Open Source Definition could be extended to cover data in general (media, databases, and yes, models) with a single sentence, but the lowest risk option is to not touch something that has worked well for a quarter century.

The community is starting to regroup and discuss possible next steps over at https://discuss.opensourcedefinition.org

We risk giving AI the same opportunity to grow in an open direction, and by our own hand. Massive own goal.

The community is starting to regroup at https://discuss.opensourcedefinition.org because the OSI's own forums are now heavily censored.

I encourage you to join the discussion about the future of Open Source, the first option being to keep everything as is.

Similarly, if you run the scripts and it produces the model then it's Open Source that happens to be AI.

To quote Bruce Perens (definition author): the training data IS the source code. Not a perfect analogy but better than a recipe calling for unicorn horns (e.g., FB/IG social graphs) and other toxic candy (e.g., NYT articles that will get users sued).

"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."

The result is a proposed standard that does not do its one job: protect the four freedoms that define Open Source (and Free Software in general).

"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."

Not that they're practicing what they preach anyway - there's only one voice that matters and that's the OSI's Executive Director (https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consens...):

"We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."