However, someone earlier today put me onto the concept of AGPL licenses so I changed MIRA over to AGPL because it still aligns with my overall intent of protecting my significant effort from someone coming in and Flappy Bird-ing it while still making it freely available to anyone who wants to access, modify, anything it.
DHH also claims he is super open source when in reality he already soul-sent to the big tech bros:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-o-saasy-license-336c5c8f
We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a closed source business licence. Just with different names.
I liked BSL because the code ~was~ proprietary for a time so someone couldn't duplicate my software I've worked so hard on, paywall it, and put me out of business. I'm a one-man development operation and a strong gust of wind could blow me over. I liked BSL because it naturally decayed into a permissive open source license automatically after a timeout. I'd get a head start but users could still use it and modify it from day one as long as they didn't charge money for it.
I'm not seeing the justification for this comment. If anything that license, like the BSL, is aimed at keeping the small guy who worked on X in business so they can profit from their work (always need to put food on the table) while also sharing its innards with the world.
Maybe I was doing it wrong. The question is: how do you prevent the AI from falling into a corrupt state from which it cannot get out?
When a user sends a message I: generate a vector of the user message -> pull in semantically similar memories -> filter and rank them -> then send an API call with the memories from the last turn that were 'pinned' plus the top 10 memories just surfaced. the first API call's job is to intelligently pick the actual worthwhile memories and 'pin' them till the next turn -> do the main LLM call with an up-to-date and thinned list of memories.
Reading the prompt itself that the analysis model carries is probably easier than listening to my abstract description: https://github.com/taylorsatula/mira-OSS/blob/main/config/pr...
I can't say with confidence that this is ~why~ I don't run into the model getting super flustered and crashing out though I'm familiar with what you're talking about.
Domaindocs is a nice no DB solution and easy thing, but got some issues with it. I create the domaindoc, add manually something inside (list of friends, Name - description), and enable it. Later I ask what I put inside, or who is x, and I got the correct output, but when I try to ask to replace x word by another, he show me what it should be, says is done and completed, but does not edit the actual domaindoc file.
Does it produce an error or just lies to you?
I asked to replace a name, told me it was done and shows the, what should be result, but does not touch the document.
What would you think about adding another column that is used for matching that is a superset of the actual memory, basically reusing the fingerprint expansion prompt?
This is easily one of my favorite descriptive details I've ever seen in a README.
EDIT: Thanks for the feedback! I was able to pinpoint it to a change I made earlier today to allow simultanious OAI endpoints and the native Claude support. When on a model via a 3rd party provider certain parts of a toolcall were being stripped. Not any more! Pushed an update.
If you’re able to self host and run the tool for any use, it’s effectively a free, extensible, modifiable software solution.
Copyleft licenses are as restrictive as the license DHH put out with Fizzy. I’m an Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing OSS advocate myself, but it’s difficult to argue that it’s worse or equal to a fully closed SaaS solution.
It’s not even remotely close to one of these bullshit “ee” OSS licenses
Words and phrases have shared meanings, BSL doesn't conform to the meaning we've attached to open source.
Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition.
Stating it is open source creates a bait and switch effect with people who understand this definition, get excited, then realize this project is not actually open source.
To be fair, this wouldn't be an issue if Open Source stuck with "Debian Free Software". If you really want to call it a bait and switch, open source did it first.