Readit NewsAFAIK, the relinking requirement only applies if you distribute the software to someone.
If you’re running Sidequest entirely on your own infrastructure to orchestrate jobs across your backend, you’re not distributing the software at all, you’re providing a service. The tight coupling does not itself trigger extra obligations. What matters legally is distribution, not architecture.
Edgecase is if you give your software to a customer to run on their own servers (self‑hosted deployment/docker image shipped to customer). In those cases, you would need to allow them to replace Sidequest.js (ie, not obfuscating it away).
Someone more knowledgeable can correct me, if I'm wrong
Layman here also, but I think you are correct about GPL and LGPL (this case), but not for AGPL which adds a requirement that: "... If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to get its source"
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser
Deleted Comment
Kinda answers its doe question though
To be fair, dictionary one-liners might be a tiny bit less easy to read:
{"key1": "value1" "key2": "value2"}
Not just a bit less easy, a lot less easy
This. The article suggestion will make parsers need lookahead support instead of simple state machine.
Is "key1" array of ["value1", "key2"] ? or string "value1"? We can't now until we find ':'.
You will never catch me giving my AWS keys to AI agents. I don't need that stress.
> "Sorry Dave", I have made a recommended deployment to your 1 page blog app. It will contain CDN, WAF, 3 Load Balancers and a cross region S3 backup. My cost analysis says you will be billed 200K$ next month.
I don’t see that in the code. But you’re right that there is something heuristic you can do.
Here is a relevant discussion about it in S/O: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67797804/how-to-distingu...
yonixw commented on Show HN: Client Side anti-RAG solution ai.unturf.com/#client-sid... · Posted by u/foxhop
Do you mean this is a free service? so you can use dummy API key without a server to hide it from the clients? Because it IS defined in line 262 `const API_KEY = "dummy-api-key";`
yonixw commented on Internet Archive: Security breach alert theverge.com/2024/10/9/24... · Posted by u/ewenjo
One of the many benefits of owning my own email server:
- I have a catch all setup to forward all emails to specific user on mail server
- able to setup adhoc email addresses for each online service (ie, iarch@example.com)
- able to claim example.com in haveibeenpwned
Now I get breach emails from hibp for the whole domain. Unfortunately, I was exposed in this IA breach
Google workspace lets you do it if they mange emails for your domain (and it will cost ~5-10$/month if you are the only user)
Which is a good way to get improvements other are doing that relate to your source code through LGPL's source exposing, while not forcing it everywhere (GPL case). Especially, for backend libs.
And since AGPL will essentially make it non viable for SaaS (as network separation won't do), LGPL is what left.