It's about 700 lines of the worst Python ever. You do not want it. I would be too embarrassed to release it, honestly.
It complied, but it was absolutely not fast or efficient. I aimed at compliance first, good code second, but never got to the second because of more human-oriented issues that killed the project.
Another happy customer of NameSilo here. A handful of .com, .net, and a .org domain registered with them, and I've never been personally irritated by anything they've done.
> When the Lobsters algorithm said his account was too new to post a link, I thought I was vouching for and reviewing his project link by posting it myself.
I'm pretty sure this would be considered a normal vouching & introduction of a member to the site, if those members did not then repeatedly follow up your introduction with repeated self-promotion (including bonus violation of the spirit of the unseen domain policy). As someone inviting others to Lobsters, you were trusted with a small duty to introduce them to the site properly. For most of those you invited, you were both the person initially posting the invitee's relevant unseen domain and the inviter for that invitee. It's respectful there to warn new users of site policy that you don't expect them to know.
When I invited a friend to Lobsters a few months ago so they could post their cool new project there, I made sure to educate them about the self-promotion policy so that both they could continue to use the site and so that I didn't become a problem for the site.
I thought I was. It's just no one told me about the Lobsters policy. I consistently violated the Lobsters policy for several years and no one warned me. I'm just someone who quit her job at Google Brain to build open source code all day in service to the commons. The thought never occurred to me there's people out there who view what I do as spamming and self-promotion. Before I got banned, I'd never heard the word spam used that way, which is why I was so confused. I wish I'd known beforehand that I wouldn't be welcome there, since then I wouldn't have engaged. Honestly I think the real victims here are the Lobsters community members. My work still gets promoted on Lobsters, even though I'm banned. When I publish something new or end up in the news, there's usually a Lobsters thread about it. The only difference is that now I'm not allowed to make myself personally available to my fans, answering their questions, and fixing the bugs they encounter. So I feel like I'm gaining publicity unfairly since Lobsters denies me the ability to fulfill my moral obligation to serve the people whose respect I'm earning.
As a Lobsters user, I think you could have avoided those spam flags with a less click-baity title and opening line of the body. “MIT CSG Memo 137 was the first CS publication to use the term "object-oriented"” would have been a better title, since you posted after the result was discovered.
You can remix it for commercial uses going forward. Provide your source code when requested, as required by `AGPL-3.0`, or pay for a commercial license.
`Apache-2.0` allows Element the same power right now. No organization is maintaining meaningful community forks of Synapse and/or Dendrite with their own proprietary modifications on top. Element hasn't used their power to take the vast majority of their modifications private so far.
If Element decides to go proprietary, which they could already decide to do, then the community is now left to fork an `AGPL-3.0` project instead of an `Apache-2.0` project. Oh no, we'll be protected from this happening again in the future, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Apache-2.0 gives everyone those rights. The CLA makes Element the only one who can build proprietary modifications on top. Monopolization of the position they gained by advertising as open-source.
reply