joshuapark
I read as:
- We will be taking over your business that you worked hard to build using our products and promoting our brand.
I feel that they betrayed the open source and maker community, may sound harsh, but limiting the usage of the image/brand like this is not justifiable.
- Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
We shouldn't sacrifice freedom allowing platforms to censor people.
Annoys me the bullshit on youtube on all levels, but I don't want any platform removing the right of those people to say their ideas. People can have bots, but they will never be as strong as normal users. For example, 1mi bots giving likes to a video pro-nazism, this will trend and 1mi users will downvote it :) considering the platform that youtube is, 1mi real users is almost nothing.
Also someone disagreeing with you don't mean that this person is stupid/dumb/lack critical thinking, this is a quite common thing nowadays, consider everyone who think different to be wrong and dumb, instead of analysing that most of the things break down to social, personal and moral values, which differ from people, cultures, and so on...
So let the real democracy happen and downvote what you don't like or don't approve, upvote what you endorse, etc...
Common sense (which is not that common) is what should be used to determine. Ask yourself some questions:
- Does these repositories change together ? - If the code is not together, one repo should be linked to the over via what (git tag ? version number ?) - All pieces of the application are contained within a context ? Or they can be split (example, 10 micro services and 1 frontend, but 5 of those micro services are also used by another frontend in another project).
The main goal is to make things easier, some PoC and experiments may make it more clear because it really depends on the situation.