IANAL, but calling this "relicensing" is technically inaccurate. It is more precise to describe it as adding constraints. When you combine your work with upstream code, you are layering additional requirements (like copyleft) onto the existing attribution requirements. The original limitations remain in effect. Therefore, it is not a shift from A to B, but rather from A to A ∪ B.
This practice is entirely compatible with the PostgreSQL License, but it is often prohibited by GPL variants. You typically cannot combine GPL code with code under most other copyleft licenses, such as the Eclipse Public License.
Regarding copyright status, AI-assisted work is increasingly recognized as copyrightable in many jurisdictions, provided the process involves a sufficient level of human creative input (though the specific threshold varies by jurisdiction). Only work generated purely by AI, with no human involvement, is arguably public domain. In a case like this, which is akin to "pair programming," the output is almost certainly copyrightable.
I think that means those MEPs are not doing their jobs. They are the representatives of their people, but somehow they left for vacation before the last day of the session. They failed in the most important part of their duty.
The PostgreSQL License is a variant of the BSD license and is therefore compatible with the (A)GPL.
Comprehend it this way: You create a blank (A)GPL project and incorporate the upstream BSD codebase into it. While those original upstream files remain under their original permissive license, the project as a whole is governed by the (A)GPL (plus the attribution requirements of the upstream license, which the GPL permits). From there, you can add your own code under the AGPL and distribute the combined work under the AGPL.
If someone takes your code and uses only your portion, they can use it under the AGPL alone. However, if they also include the upstream source code, then the attribution requirements of the upstream license must still be met.
For instance, the TypeScript rewrite in Go was done mostly by humans and took a year before it was released. That is how you rewrite software that people can trust.
> Elastic License 2.0. The source is public and you may use, copy, modify, and redistribute it. You may not offer SmallDocs to third parties as a hosted or managed service, strip its licensing notices, or circumvent its license-key functionality.
I have had a lot of experience creating and editing PowerPoint slides with Claude recently. It always converts the file to a PDF using LibreOffice and then renders the PDF into images to see if everything went right and that no text has overflowed.
"Why is it worth the switching cost?" is the genuine question I have too. Or more importantly, why not just make it ProseMirror v2?
The landing page needs more information about the "why" rather than the "what".
Usability-wise, they are no match for Android and iOS—or even versions of them from five years ago.
UI/UX is costly, and most FOSS projects cannot get it right without massive investments from enterprises (e.g., Red Hat's UX designers heavily contributed to GNOME) or startups (e.g., Zed, Element, Bluesky).
Projects without that backing are mostly unusable, at least from a Gen Z perspective.
I don't find a closed-source Chinese agent system trustworthy.
It is essentially a black box with full user permissions, meaning you are just handing over your entire system to a Chinese-owned server. With OpenCode and its GLM provider, at least I can monitor which files were read, which were edited, and what commands were executed.
Not to mention that Chinese national security laws legally obligate companies to cooperate with state intelligence and counter-espionage efforts [0]. If you have this installed on a corporate workstation, and your company is large enough, the possibility of them spying on you is not just a risk—it's almost a certainty.
I don't find a closed-source Chinese agent system trustworthy.
It is essentially a black box with full user permissions, meaning you are just handing over your entire system to a Chinese-owned server. With OpenCode and its GLM provider, at least I can monitor which files were read, which were edited, and what commands were executed.
Not to mention that Chinese national security laws legally obligate companies to cooperate with state intelligence and counter-espionage efforts [0]. If you have this installed on a corporate workstation, and your company is large enough, the possibility of them spying on you is not just a risk—it's almost a certainty.
According to CursorBench [0], Fable is the first runner-up, scoring 72.9% ($18.02, Max), while Opus 4.7 Max hits 64.8% ($11.02) and GPT-5.5 Extra High sits at 64.3% ($4.37).
I bet most American companies would choose Fable over GPT-5.5. Employee salaries cost far more than token costs. Getting the job done right is much more important.