I don't understand why these sites just put a bunch of buzzwords instead of telling you what it actually is.

Go programs, and python programs (which also has a pretty comprehensive standard library) have a lot of dependencies too. A big standard library helps a little, but I'm doubtful it is the "single best defense".

And there are several practical problems with a big standard library, which this article didn't address at all. I think for rust at least, a much better approach would be to have a collection of "blessed" libraries under the umbrella of the Rust Foundation. But that just reduces the risk for a subset of dependencies it doesn't solve the fundamental risks.

Although it could be higher if a lot of donations are small, and hitting the minimum transaction fees. The average could also be brought up if donations are made through the play or apple app stores, which have much higher takes.

The neat thing about LLMs is they are very general models that can be used for lots of different things. The downside is they often make incorrect predictions, and what's worse, it isn't even very predictable to know when they make incorrect predictions.

If you archive it, then sure user's are less likely to send you disrespectful messages by whatever means (assuming they can find such means), but they are also less likely to use it, because you have basically said "this project is abandoned". Which if you don't want users at all, I guess that's fine, but then I'm curious why you bothered to publish it publicly at all.

But if the sponsor is getting a tax write-off because of their donation to non-profit to do work on the project that they would have done anyways for their commercial product, then they are basically just using the non-profit to avoid taxes, and while I'm not a lawyer, it wouldn't surprise me if that is illegal, especially if the company also controls seats on the board of directors.

> a nonprofit may not be a great vehicle for some free software projects

I've frequently wondered if we need some new kind of structure for funding open source projects works kind of like a non-profit but is more lenient in some ways, like allowing some kinds of business transactions in addition to accepting donations, and maybe you don't get as much of a tax deduction for donating to it. I don't know exactly what that would look like though, and it would probably be difficult to get right.

Collabora clearly has a conflict of interest, as their Collabora Office products both benefit from, and compete with LibreOffice proper. They even allude to that conflict of interest in the next sentence:

> overriding past board and engineering steering committee decisions and violating their own processes to drag code out of the attic to enable competing with their largest single contributor

A non-profit dedicated to promoting open source software should do what is best for that project and its users regardless of if doing so steps on the toes of corporate sponsors.

Archiving a project which has other maintainers is an overreaction.

Does that seem like a free informed decision?

Looking at it another way, anti-disparagement agreements are basically bribes to keep quiet even if disclosure would benefit the general population.

But the contract is being enforced from the US.