There’s a new version of Nephele WebDAV server (also on Docker Hub) that supports using an S3 compatible server as storage and encrypting filenames and file contents.
This essentially means you can build your own cloud storage server leveraging something like Backblaze B2 for $6/TB/month, and that data is kept private through encryption. That’s cheaper than Google Drive, and no one can snoop on your files.
The MIT and Apache licenses are permissive licenses that allow developers to use the licensed code in proprietary projects without having to disclose the source code.
I understand that some projects needs these kind of license to protect their code, I get it. But this will most of the time shift the project to a closed proprietary/paid service over time… leaving the open source community with a strange feeling of being abused.
It’s not always the case, but it happened in the past, leaving people to fork the project and strating over.
Licensees may redistribute Derivative Work under different terms.
Licensees do not have to distribute the source code alongside with their Derivative Work.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
Rules:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
Apache license 2.0
Ah. I don’t know why anyone would be put off by that.
Me neither, but I’d love to hear those arguments.
I understand that some projects needs these kind of license to protect their code, I get it. But this will most of the time shift the project to a closed proprietary/paid service over time… leaving the open source community with a strange feeling of being abused.
It’s not always the case, but it happened in the past, leaving people to fork the project and strating over.
Licensees may redistribute Derivative Work under different terms.
Licensees do not have to distribute the source code alongside with their Derivative Work.
https://itsfoss.com/open-source-licenses-explained/