Python 3.13 is adding support for removing GIL, via PEP 703
starshipwinepineapple
joined 4 months ago
The article mentions that the letter indicated intent to petition with the USPTO to cancel the Javascript trademark due to abandonment. Hopefully that is successful since that seems to be the best outcome short of Oracle willingly forfeiting it.
I really like that it is a static website being updated and built on a schedule from github actions.
I use my IDE for basic things, but anything more involved i use git directly. It's really not as intimidating as it's made out to be. I'm no expert by any means but i know enough to get around and read the docs when i need help
Open source is generally understood as libre, and an OSI approved license.
I think you're thinking of source-available.
Additional reading: https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-source-available/
Anyway, thanks for the list!
From what i can tell there are no transaction fees for sponsorships from personal accounts, and organizations pay 6% (or 3% if invoicing). (Source)
Is there something else I'm not seeing?
The whole idea to check the donations came from stumbling upon this post which discussed costs per user. Even $1/mo is quite a bit more than the average user cost. So $2 isn't so measly when putting it into that perspective!
In fairness websites from 2000-2004 werent all that better
Were there better ways to make a site? Absolutely, but it is much less wild than if you told me that this happened last week. Plus i would hope they were just churning out websites for cheap since a lot places didn't have a website, or they used geocities/similar
The difference is that commercialization is inherent with a free (libre) open source license. Whereas going against the intent, but still legally gray area, is imo malicious compliance because it circumvents what the license was intended to solve in the first place.
But that's all i really care to add to this convo, since my initial comment my intent was just to say that the AGPLv3 license does not stop corporations from getting free stuff and being able to charge for it-- especially documentation. Have a good one
No. I said even if they don't maliciously comply with the license [by making the open sourced code unusable without the backend code or some other means outside of scope of this conversation] then they can charge for it.
The malicous part is in brackets in the above paragraph. The license is an OSI approved license that allows commercialization, it would be stupid for me to call that malicious.
Right. VBA or this may not be the best tools for the job but when IT restricts what can be used then VBA or excel python could be great examples of Shadow IT.