I felt like that was implied by the usage of AGPL: if Amazon wanted to start using this and apply patches on top of it, the AGPL would require that they share those patches with their customers, which would allow Elastic to integrate them into main again.
I don't think that's their intention. Elastic wouldn't be able to integrate Amazon's patches back into their codebase without losing the ability to change the license in the future. Even more, since it's AGPL, they'd have to get rid of their other licenses immediately.
> Elastic wouldn't be able to integrate Amazon's patches back into their codebase without losing the ability to change the license in the future.
(I anal, even if I were a lawyer, I am definitely not YOUR lawyer, yada yada)
If I were Elastic, I would require Amazon dot com or anyone else who wants to contribute code to Elastic to sign a CLA. Depending on how the CLA is structured, this could allow Elastic to continue multi licensing?
In this scenario, Amazon doesn't want to contribute to Elastic, Elastic wants Amazon's changes from Amazon's fork (Opensearch). So they can't demand Amazon sign a CLA, because they can't offer Amazon anything for it. Amazon is fine just ... not signing and continuing on their open fork.
Elastic have lost the Schelling monopoly on what constitutes the "mainline".
But Elastic can already take the changes from Amazons fork - opensearch is permissively licensed. What they might want is that Amazon stops maintaining its fork and contributes directly to elastics mainline. I believe that ship has sailed, and it's not coming back to pick up stragglers.
At my company, we do business in the EU. It's a wide market with many opportunities. We're extremely careful with personal data: we do not intentionally collect user data, we do not share data with any third-party (and certainly never sell it)!
Importantly though, the law does not suffice with "careful". We *think* we have our bases covered and are careful to try to ensure they are but we're not sure how to *know* our bases are covered. There's the fear that some logs that we believe are anonymous might be considered identifying by some data scientist armed with techniques we've never heard of. There's the concern that some third-party library might dynamically pull in a font-set that comes from a US-based CDN based on some user configuration that we don't foresee. There's the anxiety of asking "Did we forget something? Is the DNS server in us-east-1?" when trying to roll out new features.
These are all strawmen, but they represent the kind of anxiety we feel. Having done our best to respect the requirements and the spirit in which they were written, there's the fear that we were imperfect in our awareness and that that something could cost us a fine that would have gone to someone's salary.
I would very much condemn the indiscriminate collecting, reuse, and selling of personal data, but I would also caution that those of us wanting to play by the rules find them lacking in precision.
> These are all strawmen, but they represent the kind of anxiety we feel.
No idea why you would feel the anxiety. If you're found lacking, you will forest get s notification from the DPA asking you to remedy the situation. You wont even be fined
If anyone from JetBrains is reading this thread, please take the above to heart. I have yet to have any devs in my circle make the comment that "the JetBrains AI assistant really saved me time" but I've heard more than once about how distracting (and generally incorrect) its guesses are.
I'd really rather have time invested in making the memory footprint smaller again.
JetBrains products are such a dichotomy. The core software is outstanding but for years now I've found almost every update to be net negative. They rarely add new features that I find useful and they spend a lot of time adding useless stuff that adds clutter and hurts performance, or they change existing features for no apparent reason.
Which is an incredibly misguided idea specifically in the context of a developer IDE... I mean I do understand the rationale and value for the job in other contexts. Not so much in this one though.
At some point Sweeney presumably enabled Find My, had his laptop stolen, never removed the laptop from Find My and then is upset that his laptop still reports in its location as he configured it to do and never remotely disabled?
You might consider 1Password. They don’t have the key so they effectively only see an all of the data in encrypted form, not even revealing the site, if I recall.
They have some fascinating papers about it, if I recall.
That's standard for all password managers IIRC. If they can get your into your vault without your master secret then it is a bad password manager.
What has happened to some password managers though is that they don't store the metadata encrypted (like username, website name, etc.) so that leaks have revealed which sites you use but I don't think any decent password manager has leaked passwords without a client being hacked, right?
I always knew my dad was a good dad but only once I had a kid did I really understand how much he had quietly and willing given up because he loved me. More and more each day I understand him better and continue gaining an appreciation for all that he has done for me. All of this thanks to my daughter making me / giving me the chance to see life from the other side.
I think what they were saying, especially given the phrasing “How many projects luckily succeeded after a reckless decision?” is that, if things hadn’t failed we would never have known and thus how many other failures of procedure/ ethics have we just not seen because the worst case failed to occur.
This might be a bit disingenuous. Another slightly less insulting yet equally valid interpretation is that design as a whole has shifted over the last decade plus to value form over function. The current unbridled minimalist aesthetic has a futuristic look attracts companies that want to look futuristic (Apple, Tesla, Microsoft…)
And for companies that aren’t leaders? Many of them want to be seen as such anyway, or at least not seen as irrelevant. (We might remember how X started popping up in all manner of names when XP came out.)
To some degree there is room for this as long as function remains a primary goal, however we might reasonably argue that the current competition in technology is to look sleek, not to actually empower end users, leading to a design language that’s main purpose is to look nice but not be ultimately useful.
Even if vindicated, the process can be costly.
reply