While the Backrooms movie trailer does make it look interesting, "Backrooms" / liminal horror / Skinamarink all have the same effect on me: nothing. I figure the split of people who find it scary vs those that don't is people who can "unscare" themselves.
Like when I go into my basement at night, I can give myself the scare of "what if someone's watching ..." then go "nah" and I'm fine.
I'm not sure if it's even meant to be scary. I think of the Backrooms as closer to the world of Piranesi, or the project that took a bunch of virtual-tours of apartments for rent, and aggregrated them all into a single mega-building.
I think it’s degrees, can you open a door halfway and stick your hand into a dark room without feeling creeped out? What if instead that liminal space is the temple in Indiana Jones and you’ve seen big spiders crawling around? It’s a fear of the unknown and we’re all tuned a little differently, I think we can all evoke this feeling it just takes more or less depending on the person and how much knowledge you have about the environment.
I worked at a Target in an old mall and there was a corporate office in the basement that had been abandoned years before due to black mold. I was responsible for doing a once a week check, just making sure nobody had been down there, that place majorly creeped me out even though I had the key and had a high degree of confidence nobody else was going to be down there. Also “black mold” evokes an image of a creeping horror even though rationally I know just going down there once a week isn’t going to give me some horrible respiratory illness.
"Backrooms" and liminal spaces take me back to my early nightmares/kid fears, or the way they've stuck in my memory, at least.
I have the same sort of memory reaction/association with chillwave/vaporwave, in part because it's chopped and screwed in a way that suggests memories of vibes.
The teaser trailer narration mentions the spaces as something the place itself is remembering, and misremembering, and that actually made me sit up and listen, because maybe this is an existential Internet horror film which actually gets the existentialism right!
Totally get why it wouldn't click with some people, but man, it does with me.
Seems onlyoffice is "unforkable"? It's AGPL but has extra restrictions: you're required to show their logo but they don't give out rights for others to use their logo.
Doesn't the AGPL specifically disallow that? If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation.
OnlyOffice claims that additional terms fall under section 7 of AGPLv3, which explicitly allows adding such terms. I think the point of contention arises from the interpretation of section 7 and more specifically this sentence:
> When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it.
> In other words, AGPLv3 does not permit selective application: a recipient either accepts AGPLv3 in its entirety, including all additional conditions, or acquires no rights to use the software.
> Any removal, disregard, or unilateral “exclusion” of conditions imposed under Section 7 constitutes use beyond the scope of the granted license and therefore a breach.
That's about adding permissions -- not adding restrictions. There are a list of allowed restrictions in section 7, lettered A-F, and then the statement:
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
Yeah, b) does provide for attribution, which could be a valid claim here. But b) does not prohibit rebranding, nor does it require the use of branding to be used in any trade capacity as described under e).
Referring to a brand in the capacity of providing attribution is entirely different than using a brand in the capacity of trade. Attributing someone is not the same as using their trademark. Ever write a "works cited" at the end of a report in school? They aren't full of logos, they don't imply that you are the author, (they state the opposite) and they certainly don't violate any trade laws. They are literally just lists of attributions.
e.g. "This software is copyright OnlyOffice", or similar, is an attribution that does not violate any trademarks. It satisfies both b) and e). (although I will note that the license says "or" for each of those, but this probably isn't the intended interpretation)
I think you're confused by the term "permissions". You can give more freedom to the license and a copier can remove them as long as it doesn't remove the freedom that are in AGPLv3. The OnlyOffice team claim comes from the next paragraph of section 7:
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may [...] supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
This is what they did and what the other part stripped from their blatant copy. So no, removing the logo or the OnlyOffice terms therefore seems forbidden by the license itself, revoking it for the other part, thus they are now making a counterfeit.
“Making exceptions to conditions” and “adding additional conditions” are literally opposed concepts, and the AGPL explicitly distinguishes between “additional permissions” and “further restrictions”. So, were OpenOffice bound by the original license without its additions, that would be problematic.
Author attribution, legally, doesn't refer to brands or logos. They're different things... e.g. the difference between [the disney logo] and "Copyright 2026 The Walt Disney Company"
It can disallow downstream licensees from doing things with it, it can't prevent the copyright holder and licensor.
> If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation.
If it's a copyright violation of a copyright on the license, that has no effect on the effect of the license between the licensor and licensee, though it may result in money being owed by the licensor to the copyright holder on the license.
OTOH, I think any US court would find that a party trying to control the legal effect of licensing arrangements between third parties by leveraging a copyright on license text is, itself, a fairly strong indication that the particular use of the license text at issue is outside of the scope of copyright protection. That's not protecting expression, it is instead creating a roadblock to the freedom of contract.
Licenses are permissions to use a privilege which some legal rule (e.g., copyright) makes exclusive. You don't need a license when a work is out of copyright.
Its funny to be relying on copyright licenses when what people really want to to do is rewrite the law, but that's a different issue.
I'm saying the copyright on the license will expire, at which point the parts of the license that rely on its own copyright will no longer be enforceable.
from my reading, onlyoffice misread AGPL and the restrictions are not what section 7 meant; however that just means it's not really an AGPL licensed code as they are using AGPL wrong, not that NextCloud can just ignore it and treat it as AGPL.
(if OnlyOffice is really all their code and not some other re-forked AGPL code. I haven't looked.)
if you make an exception to obeying licenses because "that person/company/country are bad" or whatever, exceptions start sneaking in all over the place, and the entire fabric deteriorates quickly afterwards.
edit: did not expect people to be in favor of blatantly ignoring licenses. huh.
anyone want to tell me how we determine who the bad people are that we can ignore their licenses, and who the good people are where we will honor them? what is the criteria?
We could have reciprocity laws. If a country won't respect software licences, or permits hacking gangs as long as they don't rob from their own, then they should get the same treatment in return.
I mean, that sort of already did happen quickly in Feb 2022, with contracts a lot more significant than open source software... like when leases for 400 commercial jets were terminated over night, and Russia responded by seizing them. And the US started seizing yachts, real estate, and bank accounts of oligarchs.
I'm not in favor of ignoring licenses, but practically speaking, they require legal nexus to function.
The argument is that we should only obey the rule of law with counterparties who reciprocate, rather than voluntarily hamstring ourselves for no benefit other than moral purity.
right, damn pesky morals are always hamstringing human progress.
my thinking is that once you start selectively applying rule of law to "good guys" and "bad guys" (or whatever criteria you pick), you have lost something really important. fingers crossed no one ever alters the criteria such that you fall on the "wrong" side!
i did not expect people to advocate for ignoring licenses, and further, arguing that the rule of law should be selectively applied. but, i am too old to expend energy trying to convince people that the rule of law loses all meaning if it is selectively applied.
so, sure, fuck licenses. if someone pisses you off, just say they were born in the wrong country and steal their shit. thankfully i am retiring soon, so i probably wont see the winners of this race to the bottom.
I think you're entirely right. I also think that what you're warning about is already in the past, due to the practicalities of globalization.
There are so many laws around the world that apply to "websites", that currently, you can't operate any sort of online presence anymore without at least implicitly picking and choosing which laws on the planet that you're going to follow. Nobody hires hundreds of lawyers in every country of the world to comply with every website law on the planet, and if you did, I bet you'd find you probably can't practically operate one.
there is some interesting and nuanced discussion to be had with your main point, but
>This isn't to say that you should ignore software licenses, [...]
the main/only reason that i started this comment chain, and continued it, is that the other commenters are saying you should (if they are from the "wrong" country, anyways).
>i did not expect people to advocate for ignoring licenses
> am too old to expend energy trying to convince people that the rule of law loses all meaning if it is selectively applied.
Again, for what feels like the third or fourth time, this is already happening all over the globe.
It's an open secret, for example, that the AI companies trained their models on pirated textbooks. It's not even an open secret, just the bare-faced truth, that the AI companies trained and continue to train on source-available software without regards for license. It's common knowledge that Russian and Chinese companies (among others) benefit from state-sponsored corporate espionage and sanctioned software piracy. The Rule of Law is dead in many countries, including the United States.
There's literally nothing to be gained by not following suit. You can't pay your rent with ethics.
>fictional idealized world we wistfully discuss in classrooms.
you can live in the real world without stealing software from people and justifying it because they were born in the "wrong" country.
i have done it my entire life.
"two wrongs dont make a right" is a pretty simple rule to live by, even in the real world. perhaps unsurprisingly, it is also good for ones mental health.
The software in question is, IIUC, a bastardized AGPL. You'll have to clarify for me how forking it constitutes stealing. Explain it like I'm in kindergarten.
China has been at this for centuries and is doing just fine. I can imagine Russia has too for a while and this in particular seems to have had very few negative consequences for them.
> the entire fabric deteriorates quickly afterwards.
It just disproves this entirely. China has been at it for decades, which entire fabric has detoriated? Have licenses been meaningless for decades because of the existence of China?
the moral fabric of not stealing software and ignoring licenses.
>Have licenses been meaningless for decades because of the existence of China?
uh, in china? apparently yes!
if that is how you want the rest of the world to operate too, that is your opinion. i think it will suck, but whatever.
selectively applied law is fun when the laws are selectively applied against people you dont like. just gotta make sure you never get put in the wrong pile.
Adherence to licenses is completely meaningless if it's a one-way street. The whole concept of them is based on reciprocality. Since there's zero chance a Russian court is going to hold up a Western entity's complaint about a Russian entity's violation of their license, reciprocality is dead.
This is a very mainstream concept so I'm not sure why you're so worked up about it.
I disagree. But to each their own, also depends how one watches it. a truehd atmos audio stream for a movie can be 3-4GB by itself. Of course, for many perhaps a TrueHD atmos audio stream is overkill, but for many its not.
If one is going to store the originals anyways (i.e. the ISO images one backs up from disc), then I'd still stand by my statement, you're not saving anything by encoding it then, beyond perhaps limitations in how much storage one can keep online at a time (and in that context then, my initial statement of storage being cheap further applies, as one is saving the same content twice).
If one is just download encodes off of usenet so doesn't have the originals, and one is content with the limitations of encodes, great. But here we are talking about tools for people who are encoding their own media (and sadly, from personal experience, I consider backed up ISOs to have a longer shelf life than many of optical discs, I have media I backed up 20 years ago now that still works, while the optical discs have degraded. Hard Disks die as well, but there are effective means of mitigating that).
I unintentionally ran the main branch when testing some changes and a lot of my config broke (mostly around LSPs, CodeCompanion was much slower streaming its responses) so might wait a bit before upgrading.
The lspconfig depreciation was a very painful upgrade for me too, as it seems to be very poorly documented; but ultimately it came down to moving all of the LSP server configuration to `vim.lsp.config` blocks, then calling `vim.lsp.enable` with all the servers I use.
I’m still not clear on what Mason is doing in my config after the switch but oh well.
Mason installs LSP servers (and other tooling if desired). So if you're managing your LSP servers elsewhere (distro package manager, etc), it's probably not doing much.
Mason was always just a package manager for LSP servers. It used to be you needed the nvim-lspconfig plugin to properly configure LSP servers to work with neovim; to help with that there was the mason-lspconfig plugin that basically mapped LSP servers (as installed by mason) to nvim-lspconfig LSP configurations to make it all Just Work.
Now nvim-lspconfig and mason-lspconfig are no longer required thanks to the `vim.lsp.config`/`vim.lsp.enable` setup so you don't need them unless you want the little bit of automagic setup. Mason you can retain if you find it easier to install LSP servers through it, otherwise you can drop that too. Personally I manage my LSP tooling through distro/mise and replaced the lspconfig plugins with just a few autocommands and manually grabbing the config files from nvim-lspconfig git repo as needed.
It's still not super intuitive with a non-trivial config and plugins. I had enough things that hooked into LSP (Mason, linting, inlay hints, etc.) that I needed to spend a couple of weekend afternoons moving my configs over. For a lot of my config it was an all or nothing migration.
I may have worded that poorly. My config, specifically around LSPs was wonky. I did the old migration of configuring LSPs a while ago, but on the master branch I'd randomly get errors printed.
Update: after updating everything the errors have disappeared, phew.
Like when I go into my basement at night, I can give myself the scare of "what if someone's watching ..." then go "nah" and I'm fine.
reply