Three years ago, I was part of a team responsible for developing and maintaining Kubernetes clusters for end user customers. A main source for downtime in customer environments occurred when image registries went down. The traditional way to solve this problem is to set up a stateful mirror, however we had to work within customer budget and time constraints which did not allow it. During a Black Friday, we started getting hit with a ton of traffic while GitHub container registries were down. This limited our ability to scale up the cluster as we depended on critical images from that registry. After this incident, I started thinking about a better way to avoid these scalability issues. A solution that did not need a stateful component and required minimal operational oversight. This is where the idea for Spegel came from.
  • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
    6·
    2 days ago

    I feel this is why GPL exists, corporations are wary of copying it or forking it. It is very restrictive, you shouldn’t use it if you don’t care if the forked project doesn’t attribute you or doesn’t contribute anything upstream.

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    36·
    2 days ago

    This experience has also made me consider changing the license of Spegel, as it seems to be the only stone I can throw.

    Dude used MIT license without knowing why GPL exists, then got upset. If you use MIT, you use it because you absolutely do not care if your work is appropriated by others, especially corporations.

    It’s like he put furniture on the curb with a “free” sign on it and now is upset his stuff is being sold at an antique store.

    He has no reason to be salty because he had in effect told Microsoft to take everything and don’t give anything back. So yeah, he should change it to GPL like yesterday. GPL was created because of the problem he has now faced.

    • Deebster@programming.dev
      12·
      2 days ago

      [MIT] does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else.

      Sounds like it wouldn’t matter which licence he used. Shitty behaviour from Microsoft.

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      6·
      2 days ago

      Not specially you, just a comment about the license: OP’s problem with attribution is minor. The major problem they have is that Microsoft took his time to get a personal intro to the project, forked it and didn’t contribute back. That’s what he’s unhappy about. That there was no attribution is barely important.

      Yes, choosing MIT doesn’t require hem to contribute back and it should’ve been a restrictive opensource license, but it seems he really thought they asked for a call in order to join in on the development.

      Anti Commercial-AI license

  • Zenlix@lemm.ee
    3·
    2 days ago

    Does the MS version have stuff that would be incompatible with the original?

    If not they made an absolute shitty move.