Hacker News: ssddanbrown

New comment by ssddanbrown in "OpenPrinter"

ssddanbrown — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 21:50:09 +0000

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

So not open source.

New comment by ssddanbrown in "GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17"

ssddanbrown — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 22:01:00 +0000

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.

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Grit: Rewriting Git in Rust with agents"

ssddanbrown — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:26:36 +0000

> 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)

New comment by ssddanbrown in "PyInfra 3.8.0"

ssddanbrown — Mon, 04 May 2026 13:54:16 +0000

I've been using PyInfra for a while, albeit just for simple automation (Updating systems, checking certain stats) and I'm a big fan. Compared to Ansible, I found the docs, syntax and usage patterns much easier to get on with. Might just be a preference thing, but I always had trouble going through the Ansible docs.

Ran into some bugs, like one machine that seems to cause errors and mess up the output on restart, although that looks like it might have been addressed in this release.

If it helps, I put together a video when initially exploring PyInfra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-_0RiFnKEs

New comment by ssddanbrown in "BookStack Moves from GitHub to Codeberg"

ssddanbrown — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:30:32 +0000

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.

New comment by ssddanbrown in "BookStack Moves from GitHub to Codeberg"

ssddanbrown — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:25:02 +0000

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.

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Dokploy is the sweet spot between PaaS and EC2"

ssddanbrown — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:13:32 +0000

Just as a warning the licensing of Dokploy is a little complex/questionable, which I've documented here [1] and queried with the project here [2].

[1] https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/dokploy/

[2] https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/discussions/3

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Huawei releases an open weight model trained on Huawei Ascend GPUs"

ssddanbrown — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:52:31 +0000

Just a warning, the license [1] specifically blocks EU use:

> 3. Conditions for License Grant. You represent and warrant that You will not, access, download, install, run, deploy, integrate, modify, or otherwise use the Model, directly or indirectly, within the European Union.

[1] https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model/blob/ma...

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"

ssddanbrown — Sat, 05 Apr 2025 15:23:15 +0000

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...

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"

ssddanbrown — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 19:54:29 +0000

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

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"

ssddanbrown — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 19:41:26 +0000

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.

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"

ssddanbrown — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 19:35:19 +0000

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.

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"

ssddanbrown — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 19:30:34 +0000

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"

Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

ssddanbrown — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 18:28:38 +0000

Article URL: https://danb.me/blog/gumroad-is-not-open-source/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43586107

Points: 122

# Comments: 50

New comment by ssddanbrown in "A powerful free and open source WAF – UUSEC WAF"

ssddanbrown — Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:16:08 +0000

The license used [1] would mean this very much wouldn't be widely considered open source, since the license sets limits on use and does not seem to provide open modification nor distribution.

[1] https://github.com/Safe3/uuWAF/blob/393262d525d0e35c14819bfa...

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Show HN: Open Rewind – POC for audio and screen and video streaming to S3"

ssddanbrown — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 22:45:59 +0000

Your readme states "MIT License - See LICENSE file for details" but there is no such license file. I've been seeing this a lot lately, did you use an LLM to generate this part of the readme? If so, was MIT a concious choice of yours?

New comment by ssddanbrown in "Simplify Open-Source Software Management with OctaByte"

ssddanbrown — Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:48:19 +0000

I looked at the page for my software you provide (at https://octabyte.io/fully-managed-open-source-services/appli...) and noticed the "BookStack Website" button leads to a kind-of iframe version of the site which also breaks links (and maybe other functionality) on the website. This is kind of sketchy IMO, since your not leading users to the actual project site, but some kind of modified/framed version. Please don't do this, just lead people to the site if that what the buttons says instead of a modified and potentially broken version of it.

I also see a lot of applications that are not generally considered open source listed on this service, including those with licensing considerations in regards to providing a hosted (or assisted hosting) service; Like Hashicorp Vault for example. There's also some which, unless you're manually patching the underlying projects, you'd technically being using their code which is under a non-open/enterprise-agreement license (like those I've included on my blogpost here: https://danb.me/blog/poisoned-source/)

New comment by ssddanbrown in "[dead]"

ssddanbrown — Sat, 02 Nov 2024 10:11:48 +0000

> Fully open-source: Every line of code is transparent

The client libraries look to be provided under a license [0] which many would not consider to be open source since they seem to limit redistribution:

> 2. With restriction on copy, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the software

[0]: https://github.com/earthodev/eartho/blob/66ee1c2098242c719a8...

Beware of Poison in the Source

ssddanbrown — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:23:50 +0000

Article URL: https://danb.me/blog/poisoned-source/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41988944

Points: 8

# Comments: 0

Common Misconceptions of the AGPL

ssddanbrown — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 09:58:58 +0000

Article URL: https://danb.me/blog/common-agpl-misconceptions/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729073

Points: 1

# Comments: 0