A "content" tag claims "A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft
in the Microsoft Cemetery" but all I see is metadata and a javascript
tag. Where is the content?
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, maximum-scale=5">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="ie=edge">
<meta name="description"
content="Killed by Microsoft is the Microsoft Graveyard. A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery.">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="assets/favicon.png">
<meta name="theme-color" content="#FAFAFA" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://killedbymicrosoft.info" />
<title>Microsoft Graveyard - Killed by Microsoft</title>
<meta name="image" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card.png">
<!-- Schema.org for Google -->
<meta itemprop="name" content="Killed by Microsoft">
<meta itemprop="description"
content="Killed by Microsoft is the Microsoft Graveyard. A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery.">
<meta itemprop="image" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card.png">
<!-- Twitter -->
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image">
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Killed by Microsoft">
<meta name="twitter:description"
content="Killed by Microsoft is the Microsoft Graveyard. A full list of dead products killed by Microsoft in the Microsoft Cemetery.">
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@killedbygoogle">
<meta name="twitter:creator" content="@killedbygoogle">
<meta name="twitter:image:src" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card-twitter.png">
<!-- Open Graph general (Facebook, Pinterest & Google+) -->
<meta name="og:title" property="og:title" content="Killed by Microsoft">
<meta name="og:url" property="og:url" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info">
<meta name="og:description" property="og:description"
content="Killed by Microsoft is the open source list of dead Microsoft products, services, and devices. It serves as a tribute and memorial of beloved services and products killed by Microsoft.">
<meta name="og:image" property="og:image" content="https://killedbymicrosoft.info/assets/social/card.png">
<meta name="og:site_name" property="og:site_name" content="Killed by Microsoft">
<meta name="og:type" property="og:type" content="website">
</head>
<body>
<div id="killedbygoogle"></div>
<script src="main.js"></script>
</body>
</html>
That is not the core of the problem. Spammers are humans, and sometimes
they will solve recaptchas in large quantities to get their spam
through. Its about having a multipronged approach for administrators to
stay ahead of them. For some examples of free solutions see
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Combating_spam. It's even possible
to connect spamassassin to forms. Gitlab needs tools and automation that
detects and rolls back spam, bans users, knobs to tune restrictions and
rate limits based on how spammers are acting. Gitlab inc just hasn't
seemed to care much to help people trying to use Gitlab and keep their software freedom.
invent.kde.org uses the nonfree google Recaptcha, that prevents it mostly. Not very nice for KDE to make people run nonfree software blob in their browser that gives up their freedom, gives up their privacy to google and trains Google's proprietary machine learning models.
The point people keep talking about here as risky are: what is a derivative work, and what constitutes complete and complete corresponding source definition. Both of those things HAVE been tested. complete corresponding source definition is the same in gplv3, almost exactly the same in gplv2. Derivative work is a general copyright thing tested in many cases. The extra paragraph doesn't have anything to do with them. To recap: 99% of the license is tested, and the "risk" everyone is discussing are about the parts that have already been tested. Basically, what Drew wrote is true.
> They do, however, very often use existing language, and custom language is minimized.
Guess what, AGPL does that too. Its only 1 paragraph different than GPL.
> Where contracts are often almost entirely standard per-company
"standard per-company", means custom and used used throughout the company. That doesn't make it less risky, and its not like these things don't constantly change and are hugely complicated, just look at privacy policies. AGPL is standard for all companies.
> And very rarely is the company in danger from the non-boilerplate clauses.
AGPLv3 is exactly the same as GPLv3 except that it adds 1 paragraph. That paragraph has nothing to do with corresponding source or what a derivative is. Google ships distros with Gplv3 to customers GCP, so Borg and GCP stuff would be equally affected by the "risk to Borg" and other server side code, so, I don't believe that the claimed legal risk is real, just FUD.
Corresponding source has the exact same definition in GPLv3 and almost exactly the same in GPLv2, so all this "its completely untested" thing is completely disingenuous. Google uses Borg to control gplv3 code that they also distribute, so, exactly the same case and its complete BS you are spreading. Lawyers are actually pretty good at spreading FUD about GPL, they always have been.
I went to a high school in Cali that was converted to a charter school. As far as I could tell, the main change was that they kicked out all the kids with poor grades or other problems. That is the polar opposite of "choice", it was about increasing inequality and it was completely disgusting.
> in a way that puts formal limits on what they can do with it and how long they have access to it, and I as the patient have both the right and technical ability to revoke that access
If that's what SOLID is, its a scam and more of his DRM promotion. There is no technical way to "revoke my access." Unless you have a memory erasing implant in my brain, if the data gets onto my screen, I can copy it and access it forever. Period. Fuck Tim Berners-Lee.
Table of like 30 videoconf programs but misses Big Blue Button, the best free software one I've used. And it doesn't mention the license of any of the programs.
Top comment "This is pretty unhelpful", ya, requiring running nonfree javascript to learn about security anti-patterns is an antipattren. Fuck corn, fuck bread.