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.
  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    858·
    1 day 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.

    • kensand@sopuli.xyz
      591·
      1 day ago

      IMO, the issue here is that Microsoft appears to have violated the MIT license requiring inclusion of the original author’s copyright notice. I think he has every right to be salty about that violation.

      In your analogy, the sign on the furniture says:

      Free, but if anyone asks, you got this furniture from <name here>.

      Microsoft took the furniture from the curb, but isn’t telling people whom they got it from.

      I agree in regards to your opinion that he shouldn’t be complaining about the fact that someone forked his project, that just the nature of the MIT license. However, I do think he is justified in being upset that the license was violated. Hopefully this gets remedied; it’s not hard nor expensive for Microsoft to add his name to the copyright notice in the license.

    • Deebster@programming.dev
      411·
      1 day 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.

        • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
          51·
          1 day ago

          They deleted the original copyright notice which is basically the only requirement of the MIT licence. The software is stolen.

          • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
            3·
            11 hours ago

            They deleted the original copyright notice which is basically the only requirement of the MIT licence. The software is stolen.

            Lol reminds me of a movie…

             [the crew is being told their sweded movies have to be destroyed]

            Mr. Rooney: “The FBI Warning is at the beginning of the tape.”

            Jerry: “But we erased that!”

            – Be Kind, Rewind (2008)