What fool put a background logo over a non-mobile friendly page?

In any event, this feature set looks nice.

If you like coffee, you’re talking about James Hoffman.

Honestly, Docusaurus. The idea of a site for editing the site is so overkill. Docusaurus is great, just write some Markdown, convert to standard HTML. It’s what I use for: https://nowsci.com/.

Oh good point. I’m not actually sure what the phrase would be… Publicly owned?

Could use a spring from a chip-clip. If it’s too narrow, some washers or spacers would hold it in place. Or adjust the model to fit the spring. FreeCAD is a wonderful thing 😉

So banks will be public domain when they’re bailed out with taxpayer funds, too, right?

And what was the name of your first pet?

Very odd. I use a virtual number with an REI capital one there usually, no problems thus far, and I’ve ordered a lot (mostly electronic parts)

Another option: https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256807120439578.html

And flooding with comments but I’m bored ATM, here’s a premade model of similar style: https://www.printables.com/model/1001548-black-cat-and-moon-wall-art

Looks like there are a number of styles of these in case you weren’t aware: https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256807120439578.html

When I’m back from holiday (in the new year) I’ll take a look at the pictures.

PCBWay can machine brass: https://www.pcbway.com/rapid-prototyping/cnc-machining/

You basically just upload the model and it generates a quote. Amazing how easy it is to order custom-made items these days

I 100% agree with all of this. Grayjay should not be considered FOSS or “Open Source”. But I, like Stallman of before, don’t like the choice of Open Source as representative of Free and Open Source. I am in the minority and will of course live with that.

I just wish that since OSI has a hold of the terms, and those who aren’t as knowledgeable as yourself will default to “not OSI = bad” that they would open the doors to another tier. The world is very different now than it was in the 80s.

A good example is Codeberg, an Org I’m a huge fan of, only list OSI licenses in their drop down, and actively focus on adoption of OSI licenses, when I would be happy to see SSPLv1 software there.

It’s the reason some of my professional (corporate) projects can’t leverage Codeberg and continue to use GitHub, while others I run for the same organization can be since they are MIT.

Yup. Though I do understand many people can’t afford to move, most that I know wouldn’t want to even if they could.

That’s my argument above. No, you should not.

FUTO isn’t releasing this as FOSS, but they are doing something much better than most by releasing source available with noncommercial modification.

If you create your own solution, then yes, you should.

I think OSI should consider another tier of licenses that aren’t FOSS but still “open” (source available), I don’t think Grayjay should he considered FOSS (nor do they).

To add to this, don’t buy a server at all, upgrade your desktop! Then use the desktop as a server. Then recycle every desktop for the rest of your life into the new server. Been working for me for decades.

We live in cold climates because we like cold climates. 😉

How does it clip?

It it’s simple, and you want, take a picture with a zoom lens from a decent distance away, straight on, with no angle at all. Then measure the height, width at widest point, and thickness.

If I have time after the holiday, I could craft that into a 3D model that you could provide to a place like PCBWay to have printed, or even machined in actual brass.

Posting that in a 3D Printing or CAD community might also find you a volunteer that could do this for you with a more definitive timeframe.

That being said, thats easy with a flat piece, but I’m not sure what I’m looking at as a “clip”.

So pride is a synonym for semantic. Got it.

As a member of the FOSS community, and someone who has written an absolute truckload of FOSS software, I stand by what I said.

Open Source was coined before OSI was formed. OSI, and the previous launch of GNU by Stallman, was to combat the new (at the time) practice of only releasing machine code and the commercial vehicles that came along with it.

The original spirit of sharing source code for projects in academia, before software required so much more effort, still exists in licenses like SSPLv1, etc, that are not adopted by OSI.

I, personally, think this is a bad decision.

I, personally, feel that an organization that wishes to make their products source-available, especially those that allow noncommercial modification, should be recognized for that, not punished or gate kept.

I, personally, would love to see OSI adopt an open attitude towards those types of organizations, and create another official tier in the lexicon with it’s own set of standard licenses that fit under it.

I understand and accept that other’s don’t feel that way, but that does not make their opinion about what should count as “open” any better than my own, just more widely accepted at the time.