@bjoern @scolobb Gitlab is not leveraging centralized copyleft as a way of making themselves a dominant party, but they are a dominant party, and quite consciously so.
IIRC they have hired any external developer that started making significant contributions, which is a softer way of making sure they control the direction of the project.
They also provide the read-only source code of the proprietary bits, which further fuzzies the line, but it *is* proprietary.
@kensanata @steckerhalter It's not a Germanism. The word has acquired several meanings over the centuries, and "being the origin of something" is the ... original meaning.
"Original" being a synonym of "novel" I suspect is over a century old, but still far newer than the "being the point of origin", which I suspect is at least as old as Middle English and coming from Old French.
I agree with bkuhn's view that the core (ah-hem) of the concept is really proprietary relicensing and/or proprietary add-ons. But that's just one view. There is no consensus on the meaning.
> forcing any and all electronic platforms to be liable for copyright infringements of user-uploaded content, if they have not taken “appropriate and reasonable measures” from preventing such uploads. [ . . . ] forcing electronic platforms to be liable to multimillion lawsuits if they don’t use automatic censorship machines.
This means making things like Google's broken Content-ID mandatory. CID causes no end of troubles for small independent publishers and for fair use.
> Worse still, there’s already — already! — steps taken to expand this machine censorship (let’s call a spade a spade, here) to also include unwanted political opinions, under the label of “terrorist propaganda” — which has become so diluted today that it basically means “anything the government doesn’t particularly like”.
> a mandatory linking fee (!!) which is the other horrible thing about this “small revision”. Yes, this is the “Google Tax” that was tried with disastrous results in Spain.
@yookoala @cwebber @ajordan On the non-silly side, I found @tantek.com's comments on https://indieweb.org/GitHub informative -- that he, @aaronparecki.com and others have been doing POSSE with github-related content.
@scolobb @klaatu "Open core" was coined a decade ago as a neutral term[0], but immediately came into use as a negative word by free software advocates, because of the unavoidable conflicts of interest and the way places like MySQL was using the model. Some discussion of the term:
bkuhn is certainly not the only person who has been using the term, and not the person who coined it, I just happened to know that he has a few posts discussing it.
[0] Coined by Andrew Lampitt in 2008, according to enwp.org/Open_core referencing Phipps, Simon (July 2012). Open Source Strategies for the Enterprise. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-4493-4117-6.