Re:The Realities of Being a FOSS Maintainer
by yjftsjthsd-h on Saturday September 16, 2017 @12:49AM
(#15262938)
Oh, and for bonus points, after telling us that we should just compile it ourselves, he highlights that there is a helpful build server, which "was once open source"... but no, you can't have it; they've closed it up. And even though it was "open source" at one point (his words), "If you find some old source code still online, be aware that no license file was added to the code, and we have not granted others any license to use it." It could be open source or unlicensed, pick one.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Realities of Being a FOSS Maintainer
by jazoom on Saturday September 16, 2017 @01:30AM
(#15263071)
Yes. This is what I was using to build. It's a very odd move indeed.
Re:The Realities of Being a FOSS Maintainer
by mholt on Saturday September 16, 2017 @01:28AM
(#15263065)
You're right, looking again at it, that paragraph is poorly worded. I should have said something more like "the source code was on GitHub" instead of "it was open source".
Re:The Realities of Being a FOSS Maintainer
by jlgaddis on Saturday September 16, 2017 @06:34PM
(#15267124)
At the time it was "on GitHub" -- regardless of the presence of a LICENSE file -- was your intention that it be considered and/or treated as "open source"?
I don't use Caddy and never have so I'm mostly a disinterested third-party so it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm more curious if you honestly never intended it to be open source or if you're simply using the fact (now, later, when it's convenient) that a LICENSE file was never explicitly included as an "out".