Nice! And MIT too. Perfect; I’ve given it a star now.

I agree. I don’t have the time but someone should point this out to the dev via an issue on GitHub.

So basically don’t use this in anything commercial because the phrase “feel free” is different to legally libre and gratis. I personally wouldn’t touch this until it’s released under a reputable license.

Shame they didn’t use a proper license when publishing.

I read complicated and dry books as that helps me. I’m reading a Roman history book and an old philosophy book at the moment that I barely make it through a handful or two of pages of either before I’m drowsy. But if I pick up a brilliant piece of literature, I’ll read until dawn with zero issue.

Love your posts and your little insights and review you share with the screenshots. Thanks for sharing!

Reference for the admission?

Spot on. Another thing to consider is weather. EVs perform worse in cold weather - lower ranger and slower charging. Some manufacturers are worse than others. Preconditioning while plugged in is super helpful in below freezing temperatures and use the heated seats and heated steering wheel instead of climate control if you can.

Just needs some research if you live somewhere where below freezing temperatures occur at times in a year. Absolutely not a reason to avoid EVs altogether, just know the limitations, what to expect, and how to best mitigate some of the limitations.

And it’s made by a Bitwarden developer.

They highlighted it was a bug and said it would be fixed very soon after it was flagged. It was addressed in a matter of days. You can build the server with the /p:DefineConstants=“OSS” flag still and you can build the clients with the bitwarden_license folder deleted again (now they’ve fixed it).

I don’t understand why you’re throwing FUD about this. Building without the Bitwarden Licensed code has been possible for years and those components under that license have been enterprise focused (such as SSO). The client is still GPL and the server is still AGPL.

This has been the way for years.

Cool. They got that sorted nice and quickly.

Edit:

I don’t get why people think they’re suddenly doing stuff under a different license to subvert the open nature of the project. They’ve been totally transparent on what isn’t part of the GPL/AGPL licensed code for years.

SSO, the password health service, organisation auth requests, member access report blah blah have been enterprise features under the Bitwarden License for ages and they architected the projects in a clear and transparent way to build without those features since they added them.

Sleep

Technically they thought they might have introduced a bug that caused the delay / a regression and set about investigating it. Pretty sure it was a Microsoft developer too.

I’d gladly take a single functioning system rather than wait another 12 years of my life for this Kickstarter project to deliver.

Next it’ll be 1000 star systems while we’re still waiting on Squadron 42.

Exactly. Source it from upstream at build time or something so it’s transparent.

You’ve been on vacation for 5+ months?

Also wouldn’t it be best to post this communication in the issue thread?

Given how long this has gone on now, it’d probably be best to inform your community that you’ll be removing BLOBs from the source and for them to be produced during build otherwise this shadow is going to remain.

This was the first time I’ve ever heard of your software and has kind of made me want to steer clear of it.

What’s this in reference to or taken from?

MIT still has copyright attribution which means you don’t own it, just have lots and lots of rights. You own the code, but you don’t own the name etc.

MIT-0 is public domain, there is no copyright by the creators, that right is assigned to all of us. You own that content and idea. It’s why anyone can use Sherlock Holmes and do anything they want with the character as he’s public domain. You don’t have to call him Schmerlock Hoves.

But yeah, for all intents and purposes to the thread, you’re right. MIT etc you can sell the code/binaries so gives you practical ownership.

But that’s against the User Agreement with GOG. You don’t have that right, DRM or not.

GOG are not selling you something you own, just like the rest of the gaming platforms. They just give you the right to download and keep DRM-free installers (for the most part) for games you license / purchase.

I like GOG, don’t get me wrong, but you don’t own anything you buy from them, you just possess. Ownership means you have control over that possession too which is only really true of a minuscule fraction of FOSS games that are licensed with MIT-0, 0BSD, Unlicense, CC0 or some other public domain license (which doesn’t include GPL, MIT, Apache licenses).