Yes. If you’re using lets encrypt then note that they do not support wildcard certs with the HTTP-01 challenge type. You will need to use the DNS-01 challenge type. To utilize it you would need a domain registrar that supports api dns updates like cloudflare and then you can use the acme.sh package. Here is an example guide i found.

Note that you could still request multiple explicit subdomains in the same issue/renew commands so it’s not a huge deal either way but the wildcard will be more seamless in the future if you don’t know what other services you might want to selfhost.

Agreed, though i do think it’s a privacy thing. Many people use privacy and anonymity interchangeably but they are different things.

The options are:

• use a single email. If it is leaked you need to update hundreds of accounts or risk falling for a malicious email
• use a catch-all email and each service gets a separate email, but you can’t turn off receiving mail at a specific address unless you use a sieve filter. This doesn’t stop people from just guessing random addresses.
• use specific aliases for each service. Idk about this specific project but usually you can turn off receiving mail at an alias. So if a company gets a data breach i just change my email (or close the acct), then i turn off the old alias.

I did the catchall for a few years but have been doing aliases for 5+ now. In the end, the only people/ companies who have my email are the ones I want.

Even has kitty timestamps further down 😻

The lede sure was buried here. I do think it could’ve been a lot more clear about the specific issues with open source licenses and also been more clear about which of those issues a Post Open license is being proposed to solve.

It was also strange to propose there would be only one Post Open license but then immediately talk about the one of the debates of which direction Open source licenses should go. The article didn’t reconcile how that and other issues would be able to be solved in one license.

I recognize that there are flaws with current Open source licenses but this article is proposing to solve 100 licenses with 1 license, without any substance on how it actually would achieve this. I guess I’m not optimistic there will only be 1 future license.

So you dislike external sync options but also don’t want to pay for internal sync options? Additionally you are in a self hosted community so you’re looking for a presumably open source project (some you listed are not), and given internally supported sync services would be one way fund development i think this narrows what your are looking for by quite a bit. You basically would be looking for an open source project that meets all your other criteria and happens to let you sync the files to your own server for free. Why would such a project not just let you take things into your own hands with whatever flavor of sync/backup you prefer? Otherwise if they’re building a sync system it would probably be a monetized cloud service which brings us back to the beginning.

Maybe such a thing exists, but I haven’t seen such a thing since that is extra development for little to no gain. Most people are happy to either pay for the cloud service to fund development or sync on their own.

Logseq: Same issues as with obsidian: Paid sync. Didnt look much beyond

Logseq is open source. Obsidian is not. So yes, both have paid sync but you can also just sync or backup the files on your own. Just be careful of sync services that sync while files/db are in use to avoid conflicts.

Everyone has a hobby 🙃

And it makes no mention that they were modifying and using GPL code prior to making their code “open source”.

Id argue that this story is not over until the GPL code can be confirmed removed by a third party

Wait, if they suspended your domain, can you even transfer it away? if not, that’s really fucking scary.

Njalla takes ownership of every domain purchased on their platform. They do let you transfer domains to another registrar where you could be the owner if your account is in good standing but seems like that may not be the case here (since account suspended)

That may be great for some domain use cases but for most stuff it would be better to have your name on the domain registration

I really like that it is a static website being updated and built on a schedule from github actions.

The difference is that commercialization is inherent with a free (libre) open source license. Whereas going against the intent, but still legally gray area, is imo malicious compliance because it circumvents what the license was intended to solve in the first place.

But that’s all i really care to add to this convo, since my initial comment my intent was just to say that the AGPLv3 license does not stop corporations from getting free stuff and being able to charge for it-- especially documentation. Have a good one

No. I said even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license [by making the open sourced code unusable without the backend code or some other means outside of scope of this conversation] then they can charge for it.

The malicous part is in brackets in the above paragraph. The license is an OSI approved license that allows commercialization, it would be stupid for me to call that malicious.

Nothing. The context of this comment thread is “fuck corporations” and then proposing AGPL to solve that. I am merely pointing out that if their goal is to have a non-commercial license then AGPL doesn’t solve that, which is why i mention they can charge for their services with AGPL.

AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it’s being run on a server.

In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.

As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don’t think is really a barrier to use for documentation.

It would be much more customer and developer friendly to allow linking a service portal instead of providing a phone number. I would go insane if a user called me directly every time one of my projects had a bug or some perceived (non)issue. No, that’s not how this works.

Kebab or snake for ease of parsing through them.

Either i wasn’t clear or you are replying to the wrong person, but i am in support of foss projects asking for donations in a reasonable manor such as this

There is an option to disable it permanently. Otherwise it is once a year and easily dismissed

It’s once per year, easily dismissed, and can be permanently disabled. Seems entirely reasonable for a piece of free software that someone would use everyday

Thanks! I’ll add that to my list to check out

If you only ever keep your repository private AND it is not a fork of a public repo, then you are fine. Full stop.

If you ever fork the repo and make a “INTERNAL” private fork but move the main project public then anything you commit to the private fork will be discoverable through the public project.

Basically you should assume if you make a repo public then the repo and all of its forks will be public-- even if the forks are “private” the commit data can be found through the main repo.