Some sites prohibit their content from being displayed in iframes, which his how I show them on the site.
When this happens you can click the up arrow to A) open in new tab if in browser or B) open in in browser window if browsing as mobile or desktop app from PWA
Yep, exactly why this is not brutalist web design. The site behaviour is unclear and rather frustrating to use. The breaking of the back feature is also bothersome.
Anyone know of an Adguard home or pihole equivalent service I can run as part of OPNSense?
I currently have a different machine dedicated to pihole, but it would be intriguing to have something built in. I would imagine split DNS and firewall rules would be simpler this way.
I'm in the process of migrating my OPNSense to a virtual machine so that I can run whatever network-related services I want right along side it in a container or VM. I used to scoff at those enterprising homelabbers who apparently stuck their firewall in a VM just because they could but I get it now. It's super nice to be able to just snapshot and back up the whole VM, and run whatever you want alongside it. (Although I will limit the box to specific network management things like AdGuard Home.)
It periodically fetches the rss feeds, and sends the content to a specified email address where you can use your email reader to sort them into folders.
Assuming you have a "good" email client, this takes care of most of my RSS requirements: Free software, offline availability, and the ability to read anywhere.
The only missing feature I think it could use is a nice GUI to manage feeds.
Interesting, I use kill-the-newsletter to go the other way around. But your approach would give a good search and archiving functionality, something that rss clients (mostly) lack. I'm using feedbro (Firefox extension) as RSS client only because I can assign points to keywords to prioritize the huge info volume. The only other client that has such functionality is on Emacs, afaik. Had not tried it.. anyway, it would be cool to find an email client that allows me to add scores to emails based on keywords in the subject and/ or content. E.g. if it says hacker +10, if it says python +5. Oh. Negative values would be cool too. Ok I should go to bed. I'm daydreaming xdd
I use a non-rss solution. Obsidian note taking app with a plugin called ReadItLater. I use it to clip pages I want to read later. Obsidian has really good fuzzy search capabilities and everything is saved in Markdown format with YAML headers.
Yes, I much prefer the idea of comms via email, but news via RSS. Email being bidirectional makes more sense to just stick to comms for, especially with `noreply@` for most newsletters.
Vscode is missing showing the call hierarchy[0]. And in addition to the mediocre debugging experience compared to Intellij products, I would definitely rank it as one of the worst C++ IDEs available.
ideally you'd be able to do either. I much prefer new windows when opening existing messages or writing new ones, but I wouldn't assume that works best for everyone else
For open-source use:
If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
For non-commercial use:
You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.
This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.
From time to time, our non-commercial users may desire an license arrangement different to the one provided by the standard Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 to suit their needs both now and in future, and such terms may be approved and negotiated on a case-by-case basis typically for a fee or other remunerative or protective arrangement.
It's licensed under multiple licenses, one of which is the GPLv3 which is not only open source, it's also free software. By every definition this is open source software.
> "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses.
No it is not. "If you are creating an open source application you may use the software under the GPLv3 or later" means "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license".
This is just licensing all the software under 3 separate licenses:
3. For commercial, closed source use you can buy a commercial license.
That's fully acceptable for GPLv3 and open source licensing in general as long as the software can be licensed by you under each of those 3 licenses separately (i.e. the dependencies are all compatible with each license and all contributors have either signed over their rights or have documented agreement to the above licensing conditions).
This is for the exact same reason that you can find dual GPLv3 (or AGPLv3) and closed source commercial licensed projects. It takes a bit of work on the IP management side but it's perfectly acceptable.
If you wanted to improve the wording of your licensing, I'd do the following:
In the licensing section for your README.md:
BrowserBoxPro is licensed separately under the following licenses:
- GNU General Public License v3 (or later) (linked to LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt)
- Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 (link to LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt)
- BrowserBox Pro perpetual commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt).
- BrowserBox Pro subscription commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt).
What does this mean for me?
Are you using BrowserBox Pro as it ships?
You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3 (or later).
Are you modifying BrowserBox Pro or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro and willing to license those changes under the GPL?
You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3 (or later).
Are you using BrowserBox Pro, modifying BrowserBox Pro, or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro in a non-commercial capacity but do not wish to comply with the license terms of the GPLv3?
You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.0.
Are you using BrowserBox Pro, modifying BrowserBox Pro, or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro in a commercial capacity but do not wish to comply with the license terms of the GPLv3?
You may purchase a perpetual or subscription based commercial license (link to commercial licensing docs).
LICENSE.md:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later OR PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0 OR BBP-Commercial-Perpetual OR BBP-Commercial-Subscription
BrowserBoxPro is licensed separately under the following licenses:
- GNU General Public License v3 (or later) (linked to LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt)
- Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 (link to LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt)
- BrowserBox Pro perpetual commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt).
- BrowserBox Pro subscription commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt).
Download the following linked files and put them under the names listed in the repo.
I think that should clear up any confusion (I am not a lawyer but am decently familiar with licensing). You could also include a "or contact us for special licensing" section like you did for OEM licensing in the README.
jacoblambda I have made a PR^0 with your suggestions, did you want to come over to make a token change so you can sign our CLA, or are you OK for me to use this and give your agreement in a HN comment here (or at the link if you're bothered) to our CLA: https://cla-assistant.io/dosyago/BrowserBox?pullRequest=240
Thanks! I know it's confusing, and I'm a little unsure about whether it's "Open Source" if like this, too. If anyone can tell me this is false, that's good as it's important to get right. But I think it's fine.
The condition they provided was effectively "if you want to use GPLv3 you can use GPLv3". That's perfectly acceptable for GPL. What they are doing on top of this is saying "if you can't/don't want to use GPLv3 but meet some other conditions, we will dual license it under one of these other licenses for you".
Let's say I have an open source project under the GPLv3 which only contains a foo.txt.
"If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3."
So I can merge the BrowserBox Pro under GPLv3 to become part of my project.
Now I remove the foo.txt and my project will be a BrowserBox Pro clone under GPLv3 without the commercial restriction.
IANAL, but I'm wondering if this license really is GPL3? Because it's like a modified version of it - "GPL3 with a condition". From there, that possibly non-GPL3 license says that you can "use" the software, but not redistribute it.
But anyway it sounds like he needs to decide what he wants, and that's probably a non-open source license, if he doesn't want commercial use.
The license for the project is not GPLv3 but if my project is GPLv3 then the non-GPLv3 license for the project grants me a GPLv3 license if I include it.
Which shows the problem with this specific license in a single sentence.
I think that's a little too reductive—foo.txt wasn't a real app.
Nonetheless, I agree with your broad point: that if somebody can use it under the GPL, they can redistribute it and then all those downstream users can use it under the GPL.
But I disagree there is anything to fix. It's copyleft FOSS but businesses are encouraged to buy a license. Everybody wins.
My suggestion would be to license it under the AGPLv3+ for everyone, and then continue to sell commercial licenses to anyone who wants an alternative to the AGPL. Most corporations will refuse to use that license even though they're allowed to (e.g., https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...) and it's 100% FOSS.
I think the confusion over the licensing definitely indicates there is an opportunity for us to communicate better about this.
In terms of there being an actual better solution, though? I don't know. We're doing what other products are doing.
We remain open to that possibility there could be a better solution tho. But we haven't yet seen anything to convince us we're not on the money as we are.
> if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
Then it wouldn't be open source, so I am not rooting for that.
However, for better or worse, large successful businesses can be built on scaring companies to pay for a commercial proprietary license and/or support, for copyleft open source.
No, an extra restriction ("For open-source use") is added on top of the GPLv3 license, which violates the license, actually (see §7):
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
It's better to license under the stricter AGPLv3 and not put any extra conditions.
keepamovin doesn't have or need a licence at all (GPL or otherwise) so can't be violating it. He is distributing his program by virtue of being the author/copyright holder, not by virtue of owning a (GPL) licence for it. He doesn't need a distribution licence (from himself).
In LICENSE.MD, he declares that I (for example) may take a copy of his program provided I choose one of the licences he is willing to offer me. One of the choices is known as the GPL. Let's say I choose that. Now he's given me a copy of the program and granted me an unmodified, unrestricted GPL licence to use and distribute it. Let's write the terms down in a file called licence.gpl. (This is just a copy of the GPL itself.) I don't hold the program's copyright. I don't have a licence to distribute the program further under his LICENSE.md but I do now own a licence to use/distribute my copy of it as described in the licence he's granted me, licence.gpl.
My distribution licence (licence.gpl) doesn't allow me to add extra restrictions when distributing. So people I distribute to under the terms of my licence.gpl will automatically be granted a GPL licence by keepamovin (not me) to distribute further.
keepamovin as the author and perpetual sole copyright holder is different from me and people I distribute his program to, who are all mere licencees never copyright holders. We all hold licences he has granted to us directly and individually. (We don't grant licences to each other, having no right to do so. The GPL allows me to distribute my copy of the program to you at which point keepamovin will automatically give you a licence. (A licence is more abstract than a licence file.))
All distributions rooted in my copy should probably make clear that they are under licence.gpl not LICENSES.md. But that's something for any program offered under a choice of licences to solve.
The copy of the program at the site above is offered by keepamovin under an open source licence (GPL) and also other licences. The site thus does have an open source offering of the program. So it's true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source".
(Just as a licence is more abstract than a licence file, a program here is more abstract than a copy of a program. A person's giving a program to another person means ownership has transferred. So I was careful to write "copy of the program" above, as none of this distribution/redistribution involves transferring ownership of the program, which abstract work remains forever only keepamovin's.)
Fair enough, I stand corrected. Worth noting that differences over interpeting the relevant provisions of GPL led to a lawsuit and the court didn’t rule in favour of the side that relied on these provisions: https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/02/court_neo4j_ruling/
From a quick glance, that lawsuit seems qualitatively different. It's about a hybrid licence that I'll call AGPLCCL here. One side thought it therefore wasn't an internally consistent licence and the court ruled that it was.
keepamovin is offering to grant me an unadulterated (i.e. non-hybrid) GPL licence to use/distribute my copy of his program. I'm treating as axiomatic that the unadulterated GPL is an internally consistent and open-source licence.
While you are right that Neo4j license was altered more substantively, @keepamovin still made a rather big restriction by stating that GPLv3-licensed BrowserBox is only available "For open-source use" (thus it's no longer "unadulterated"). It restricts me from using that software under the terms of GPLv3 without making my system open-source. That's why I suggested AGPLv3 if @keepamovin wants to ensure that applications relying on open-source version of BrowserBox remain open-source.
LICENSE.md declares that if I have an intended use in an open source application, I can apply for and automatically be granted a pure GPL licence to then copy BrowserBox Pro directly from that site. Even if only some but not all people are similarly eligible, it still becomes true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source". That some people are ineligible for a licence to directly copy from that site doesn't change that.
> It restricts me from using that software under the terms of GPLv3 without making my system open-source.
If your system is closed source, then you are one of the people ineligible for receiving a GPL licence from that site that will allow you to copy the program directly from that site. It is not that you get some restricted licence. You get no licence at all to copy from that site. (We'll put the non-commercial and commercial licences aside for the moment.)
Next, let's look at how the situation isn't too bad even for the ineligible sods. If by "it" you meant "your licence" then that's false as you don't have a licence at all. If by "it", you meant "that site", then that's somewhat true. The site doesn't restrict you from using the software, it only prevents you from getting a licence and downloading the software from that site. If a GPL licencee gives you a copy of his copy of the software, keepamovin automatically and unconditionally grants you a pure GPL. That is, when the copying takes that path, he will grant you a GPL even if you don't have an open-source application of your own. You can use that copy of the software in your closed-source system (to whatever extent the pure GPL's terms allow).
Now consider Alice who makes a promise P1 to keepamovin saying she intends to use BrowserBox Pro in an open-source project. This makes her eligible for a pure GPL licence to directly copy BrowserBox Pro from the site above. So she does. What prevents her from subsequently making her project closed source and using BrowserBox Pro in it? It's not the GPL but her promise P1. If she closes her own sources she wouldn't have violated her (GPL) licence but she would have broken her eligibility promise P1 and thus defrauded keepamovin into granting her the GPL in the first place. Her situation is complicated not because she has a complicated hybrid licence but because she has two legal documents to satisfy, P1 and the pure GPL. P1 was used to obtain the pure GPL. (This is where I remind myself that this is all just my point of view.)
What about Bob who has an open-source and a closed-source project? Call them O and C respectively. He promises (P2) keepamovin that he is creating an open source application, so gets a pure GPL licence directly from the site above, as well as a copy of BrowserBox Pro. He uses this in O. Can he make a copy of his own copy of BrowserBox Pro for use in C, or download a fresh copy from the site above for use in C? I believe he can do both. LICENSE.md reads "If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3." Thus Bob, having got a GPL legitimately by virtue of O, can also use BrowserBox Pro anywhere else his licence (pure GPL) permits him to, such as possibly C. Using BrowserBox Pro in C will not have made his promise P2 false. So unlike Alice, he will not have defrauded keepamovin in regards to his application for a GPL licence. The pure GPL Bob received from keepamovin tells him "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
It's easy for Alice to become like Bob by having a token open source project making her eligible for a GPL licence directly from the site above.
What about Carol, who wants to use BrowserBox Pro commercially but doesn't want to pay? She can ask any GPL licencee, such as Bob above, for a copy of the program. keepamovin will implicitly and automatically grant Carol a pure GPL licence, since that's what Bob's licence assures Bob. Carol can use this copy of BrowserBox Pro commercially to the extent allowed by the pure GPL. LICENSE.md is irrelevant to Carol except for telling her that keepamovin is the author and copyright holder and the one granting her the GPL. And she needs to remember that she got her copy of the program from Bob who said he had a GPL and thus permission from keepamovin to make a copy for her.
Nobody gets a BrowserBox Pro licence from the site above that is a restricted GPL. Depending on what conditions they meet and what they ask for they either get a pure GPL or a non-commercial licence or a commercial licence or no licence at all. People who make copies of the program from GPL licencees automatically get a pure GPL licence from keepamovin. There is no restricted GPL licence in existence here.
At any rate, to repeat paragraph one, the woes of the ineligible (such as potentially you, Alice, Bob, Carol) in obtaining a GPL licence and a copy of the program directly from the site above do not make "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source" false. That at least some people are eligible for a GPL directly via the site above makes the headline true.
The GPL is pre-web so has a bug allowing web programmers to use a GPL'ed program in their web service without having to give their users the web service's source code. The AGPL fixes that bug so that such web programmers will need to give their users the web service's source code. Therefore the AGPL constrains licensees more and frees their users more.
I don't want to be overly dramatic. Your current license is decent. But the AGPLv3 is better: it fixes what is essentially a loophole in the GPL (the "ASP loophole", as described by the other user here).
From your perspective, you might find it even easier to sell your paid licences to companies and governments, if you use the AGPLv3. There's little downside to switching, because the AGPLv3 is still open source, and has similar compatibility with other open source licenses.
You've already released this under GPLv3, but you can switch going forward.
True. Alright, I think the reasons for us to stick with GPL are not as compelling as I first thought. I've updated my view. We will switch to AGPL. :)
On govs, unfortunately, but I still think it's a benefit: governments can simply use it without purchasing a commercial license or using GPL, under the Polyform Noncommercial. They can definitely purchase support, deployments, and customizations tho.
For open-source use
If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
For non-commercial use
You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.
This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.
Well, this isn't exactly dual license, but the presence of GPLv3 comprehensively nullifies Polyform, so it is FOSS. IANAL.
You may want to reword as "licensed under either GPLv3 or Polyform Non-commercial 1.0 at your option" or some such, like most rust-lang projects do; ex: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup
Then give guidance on why one might choose one license over the other.
A government, non-profit or security researcher (or institute, for instance) could use it to build their own proprietary code that is not under GPL, but that uses BrowserBox Pro.
The OSI's definition is not like a heavenly authority. It's not a trademark, so I can call something "open source" even if I put it in the license file that you aren't allowed to use it if you are a red panda. (which is usage discrimination)
What OSI says and what I am allowed to call open source are not the same things.
rss2email was originally written by Aaron Swartz.
[0] https://github.com/rss2email/rss2email