Yup. 10 commits, first commit was just 4 days ago. Same with their public website & docs. On Github, it's all barely 4 days old.
Brian Lovin has released his work under the MIT license. AFAIK I believe this leaves it open to others to take the code and just run with it.
Even so, looking at their value proposition, it's just a landing page that leads to https://nymhq.com/join where you can subscribe to a "waiting list" to join a server. They claim "Nym is currently in private beta with limited servers, but is accepting waitlist requests now."
The "showcase" on the front page are just content fodder (AI? Web 2/3/5?) with quick, unstyled instances of their blogging software. The rest of that landing page seems to contain a lot of fluff as well.
Frankly, I'm extremely apprehensive about supporting this.
Had this happen to one of my projects. Someone decided to remove my name from the LICENSE file on their fork. I called them out on it, and they put it back, saying it was a "mistake".
The only thing in the original commit was removing my name. Hard to believe that could occur accidentally.
I've never labelled myself as "leaker" nor whatever I discovered as "leaks"
That's what I find funny/absurd about the amount of stuffs I found just by diving the app's code
Maybe if companies stop bloating their apps with the features that only 1% of the world will ever be able to use, I wouldn't have been able to discover all these?
I'm not saying you've ever labelled yourself as a leaker, but the person I was replying to definitely tried to label your work as "leaks". I don't think companies really care that you discover their features ahead of launch — if they did they would change the way feature flags work.
> The kernel provided for WSL2 will be fully open source! When WSL2 is released in Windows Insider builds, instructions for creating your own WSL kernel will be made available on Github.
The kernel part will be fully open source, which should be sufficient enough to comply with GPL
> which should be sufficient enough to comply with GPL
this is an age-old debate. Some people say that it is e.g. legal to make (redistribute to precise) a GPL device driver for windows, and some argue that it is not, because the whole kernel should then be GPL.
But in Windows drivers are binary files which talk to the kernel through an API. Not much different than a binary user mode application. If binary user mode applications written in GPL are ok, then so should this.
But the actual syscall is made by a Windows user mode library - kernel32.dll/... So your GPL user mode app calls directly into proprietary Windows library.
Not seeing Brian Lovin’s name in the LICENSE file in Nym either...