We create open-source software and attempt to get government agencies to adopt/use it. It's crazy how alergic these agencies are to open-source. Some will even create their own, with legacy style implementations (csv uploads, broken parsers), complete with bugs/flaws that are predicatble rather than use someone elses code.
When responding to RFPs, the open-source stuff has an a higher level of scrutinty than the closed systems. Like, if it's open then you have to show it's good but if it's closed the vendor just says "yep, we are perfect" and the agency could move on. It feels like the agency, and the employees don't want any responsibility. But I've never seen anyone lose their government job from some incompetence.
>>>It's crazy how allergic these agencies are to open-source.
It’s about job protectionism on the greater scale and being the subject matter expert who leverages his code base for promotions on the individual scale. generally agencies do not view each other as working for the same team. It can be very competitive when lobbying for resources from congress for your agency.
I work in gov and speaking from first hand knowledge. The culture is toxic. It’s broken and I can’t wait to see what changes Elon and trumps team propose.
I heard this a lot before I started my career but IME this rarely pans out and you’re just stuck with broken software without documentation and source code.
No I'm saying the company goes out of business or just tells you to pound sand because X product isn't supported now. You have a grace period of a few years.
And I'M saying YOUR company doesn't care that it doesn't work, because they still have a way to absolve responsibility for it not working: blame the vendor who went out of business.
Another thing that happens to outdoor grown cannabis is pesticide contamination. Even if your farm is a good distance from some commercial agriculture, if they spray it can, and does, contaminate your crop -- which for regulated cannabis requires destruction. Literally burning (or composting) thousands of dollars of product.
And if the pesticides test are hot on the cross-contaminated cannabis; how much is on those apples three fields over?
Typically, and USA specific, the rules are to grind it up, mix with equal parts existing dirt/compost and then it's OK. So that dilutes it by half; then this compost is spread around and, like you said, can be used for other crops. Also, as the material sits in the compost pile, which should be agitated, the pesticides will leach out/break down.
Many asterisks here but there are methods for remediating herbicide and pesticide contamination. Not saying it’s universally solved, but its not universally unsolvable either.
Edit: I meant to speak specifically in terms of compost production.
> which for regulated cannabis requires destruction
Which regulation is this that requires destroying a nearby crop... instead of the one the pesticide was actually applied to? I'm confused here. Pesticides don't "contaminate" crops in that way, they're literally intended to be use on the food.
I live in NZ where there are medical standards applied to legal cannabis - only recently have I seen dispensaries advertising non irradiated cannabis, presumably because the manufacturing facilities have progressed to no longer require it.
Some of it has to do with combustion breakdown products. Some Canadian producers got nailed with using (directly or indirectly) antifungals with that issue:
Big nope - pesticides are there to repel or kill bugs. A lot of times the recommendation is to wash fruit before eating it to remove pesticides or lead from fuel burned by cars in the vicinity, etc.
Really? I'll mention that to the birds in my neighbourhood.
The seeds and oil are quite nutritious, and the leaves sometimes have a tinge of turpentine that fits well in a vinaigrette salad. It's also common to make cannabis butter for culinary as well as cosmetic uses.
The eaten one goes through your stomach acid and can be flushed out naturally through the system. The inhaled particles may get stuck in your lungs or worse: absorbed. Lungs are not a through channel. Things absorbed there go to the brain, blood stream, a lot faster. The stuff you spray on plants is usually meant to kill or repel bugs and critters. So won’t be friendly to lung or brain tissue. Possible cancerous too.
These pesticides are a bit like the magical Chernobyl radioactive cloud, which, thanks to some miraculous high pressure and low pressures zones, neatly avoided some countries by flowing along their borders.
Here, the pesticides are magically contained by our stomach acids, and never pass the gut barrier to enter our bodies, making them absolutely safe.
Another thing that kinds of sucks about this whole "license rug-pull" kind of business is that other teams (like ours) who are publishing open-source software/tools are now suspects too.
Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?
Folk can't take us at face-value (I'd argue demonstrated value) and level (unfounded) accusations at us; because some other player did things "dirty".
Well, other folk wanted to pay for support/customisation and in USA you make a for-profit entity to do that.
So the corporate part of the open-source project is, nearly, a requirement.
"Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?"
You put MIT or GPL in the same bucket here, but really shouldn't because the difference is all that matters.
There is no "rug-pull" as you call it. What happened with Redis is what the BSD license allows and what people should expect to happen.
The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.
It is our decision as publishers of open-source projects which way we want to go. It is our decision as contributors which open-source projects we support.
Both ways are fine, but blaming others that you regret your decision is not.
> The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.
Also the lack of a CLA (and/or copyright assignment) because many "modern" projects under the GPL ask you to waive your rights away, thus nullifying the license. Do not contribute to them if you have any self-respect.
I have self-respect and have no problem contributing to projects with a CLA and copyright assignment. I recognize that I don't control what happens with my contributions, as I have consciously agreed to their terms. Controlling what happens in the future of a project simply has never had anything to do with my motivations for contributing to a project.
AWS never offered a service based on the AGPLv3 version of the MongoDB server. Therefore the change of license terms to SSPLv1 was not directly caused by Amazon’s use of the software as part of an offered service, and had no impact to Amazon DocumentDB as an independently developed interoperable protocol implementation.
There were cloud providers headquartered in Asia that did offer AGPLv3 based MongoDB server as a service.
Yes it does. You can make a private, proprietary app that’s just tweaking a few bits of a BSD project. You can’t do that with the GPL.
Following that, unless the project has a CLA (so that the owner of the project reserves all rights of the code that’s contributed and essentially owns the contribution), any contributions made under the GPL cannot be made closed source, can’t be switched to an incompatible license, etc, because the contribution itself is GPL’d.
Of course, I said proprietary. You said commercial.
Proprietary refers to ownership and licensing. While I somewhat conflated it with closed-source in my comment, it nevertheless applies since we are talking about the ability to make it closed source.
You can relicense derivative works of MIT or BSD software provided that you satisfy the original license requirements (attribution). This is irrelevant of commercializing it.
Conversely, and to your point, you can sell GPL software you didn’t write, or sell a derivative work of it, but because of the copyleft nature, your derivative work must also be licensed under a compatible GPL license.
It is not even the for-profit thing, it is the VC, because they will be expect to make millions and millions off the project and that is not really possible with just support contracts and similar
You don't need to ask people to rely on your promises. Just make sure that you are not able to do a rug pull, and explain that. It's generally pretty easy (just don't require a CLA) but you can make it clearer. For example, clarify that you don't own everyone's copyright by writing a copyright notice which includes all of the project's contributors.
What would you feel if you did all the work, but other companies made all the money by redistributing your software? Wouldn't you find that unmaintainable in the long run?
If you're looking for something similar still you may want to checkout https://aframe.io/ -- it's JS library(s) and you load them, then use custom tags in HTML to create VR worlds. it's rad.
With UUIDv7/v8 (and ULID) there are some timestamps in the front half. I've seen spots where the query was in the style of `uuid_col >= 'SOME_UUID_0000' AND ulid_col <= 'SOME_UUID_FFFF'` When one is using them ast the timing for record create/insert these things happen.
I love ULID too; but it's really just UUIDv7 (or v8) with a mustache (it's all just 128bit IDs). And in the PG world, where there isn't native support for ULID one can use UUIDv7/8 and bridge that gap. We use ULID extensively in exposed IDs, it's very URL friendly, copy/paste friendly, etc -- but it's a UUID datatype in the DB. (ie: ULID => UUID => DB)
""Open-Source Low-Latency Accelerated Linux WebRTC HTML5 Remote Desktop Streaming Platform for Self-Hosting, Containers, Kubernetes, or Cloud/HPC""