It is the angle that is important to ME, a European user. I would happily throw moneydollars at the browser project but the Mozilla suits won't allow me to, for whatever-the-fuck reason.
While that is the most common use case for CLAs, it is normally done by contributors granting a very permissive, but not exclusive, license to a legal entity like a company or foundation, in addition to the public license granted to everyone.
This is not that. This is not even a license. They want a full transfer of intellectual property ownership. Sure that enables them to use it in a commercial product, but it also enables them to sue if contributors contribute similarly to other projects. Obviously that would create a shit storm, and there is an exception with the public license, but riddle me this: can you legally make similar contributions to multiple projects that have this type of CLA?
Let us take a step back and instead look where such terms are more common: employment contracts.
How would you run a project like this? People come and go. People do a one-time contribution and then you never hear from them again. People work on a project for years and then just go silent. Honestly, credit where credit is due, but how is a project like this supposed to manage this?
Without a valid CLA and a strong core team, you often end up with fragmentation or legal deadlock. Even the ASF isn't a silver bullet—projects without strong leadership die there all the time.
The CLA exists to prevent that friction.
MinIO had a de facto CLA. MinIO required contributors to license their code to the project maintainers (only) under Apache 2. Not as bad as copyright assignment, but still asymmetric (they can relicense for commercial use, but you only get AGPL).
https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQU...
Now you have to switch apps to the browser, find which browser window has the session you want, switch to the tab, etc., instead of just switching to WhatsApp app via keyboard or taskbar directly.
The ergonomics are significantly worse.
I want most of my browser windows full screen. I don't want my instant messenger full screen. Using it in a browser means I have to have one size, and resizing one changes the other.
The experience of using a native app is far superior.
I use the WhatsApp Web PWA and it allows me to have a dedicated window/app for it?
Sure it's a little quirky at times (eg it closes if the browser restarts for update) and it doesn't have a system tray icon, but aside from that, it behaves like a separate app.
Just open it in a separate browser window then? Different windows can have different sizes and get separate buttons in the taskbar.
I guess if you're using Microsoft's ill-advised window grouping feature it would work less well (require more clicks), but breaking websites out into entirely separate programs just so we can have separate windows because Microsoft screwed up the window management functionality seems like a very inefficient workaround.
No. People are stupid. They love when taskbar (rightbottom) is flooded with icons and constantly blink to disturb when using device while sucking tons of CPU/memory.
Unfortunately the feedback period for the European Digital Fairness Act has been closed since October 24th. Does anyone know of another way to appeal to my European overlords^H representatives?
In the context of code, where review bandwidth is the bottleneck, I think it's spot on. In the arts, comparatively -- be they writing, drawing, or music -- you can feel almost at a glance that something is off. There's a bit of a vibe check thing going on, and if that doesn't pass, it's back to the drawing board. You don't inherit technical debt like you do with code.
I do the same. Case in point: I started to follow someone's blog because of their technical achievements, then I realized I don't like their political views _at all_, but I keep them on the list mostly to keep myself on my toes.
