May want to look at Just. It is heavily inspired by Make and shares much of the same syntax, but removes a lot of the workarounds necessary to use Make as a task runner and adds a few other features.
If Just grew to have a large enough feature-set that it could replace GNU Make, it would collect an equal amount of warts and sharp-edges along the way.
It's a little more user-friendly, but not enough to justify how much power you lose.
I spent the last 20 minutes reading Just's documentation, and it seems like the only real wins are nicer argument parsing and && dependencies, and the --list argument. And in exchange for that, you lose file-based dependendicies and Make's powerful templating engine. Did I miss some other features that make the trade worth it?
File dependencies are useful as part of a build system.
But often tasks are a step removed from that. Targets like "all" and "clean" are good examples of useful tasks to have, even if they're unrelated to files.
A "task runner" isn't intended to replace all of a Makefile's functionality. It takes a common use case of Makefiles, and improves the user experience for this.
I think it's fair to say that it's not a big step up; but it's a definite improvement for what it does aim to do.
Targets don't need to produce files in Make (see: your examples of 'all' and 'clean'). And non-file targets can depend on other non-file targets. Make does this out of the box, by default.
But if you ever get to a point where you _want_ to express some source-code dependencies (say: pip-install depends on requirements.txt), you can also do that in Make. Just doesn't provide any mechanism for it.
If you don't want them, don't use them. Make doesn't need you to produce actual files called 'clean', 'build', etc. you don't even have to do anything special unless your build folder has actual files called those things (in which case, you could declare them as phonies).
From Make's point of view, they're just target names. Make doesn't care whether or not a target produces any files. Targets can satisfy dependencies for other targets, as can files on the filesystem.
There are so many things where that’s not relevant. “Just start” or “just test” or “just install” are idempotent, or at least stateless (assuming “start” calls out to systemctl or such).
That's all true, but understates the important of a nicer UX. I've spent lots of time over the years working around Makefiles' idiosyncrasies. It's so good at its intended purpose that it's tempting to use it for vaguely related tasks. Turns out it's not as good for doing those things it was never designed for.
"Just" reimagines what make could look like if it were designed to be a task runner instead. That hits a sweet spot for many of us. It looks like the Makefiles we're used to, minus the pains in the neck we've tolerated from abusing make for our own purposes.
That was 20m of their 7th-9th headsets (after DK1, DK2, Rift, Rift S, GearVR, Go). Other than the Quest 2, I don't think any VR headset has sold at the rate the AVP is currently selling at.
My guess is that someone at MS was testing Windows Updates or other changes from a local source. They also had some other DNS updates in their config they were testing. They took all of their config and pushed it out, when they should only have taken the other changes.
I hope that's not their workflow, but few people I've ever worked with have know how to create operating procedures that had half a chance of succeeding, usually it's based on "oh, don't worry, i would never do that"
Sequoia also backed Apple, Cisco, Google, Youtube, Instagram, LinkedIn, PayPal, Reddit, Zoom and many more. They are just one of the largest VCs out there.
There is a difference from backing a fraud vs backing a failure.
No one is pointing fingers for the latter.
SBF would have never done anything with a simple BoD requirement: independent auditor. That was not done by BoD. This is a very standard requirement for most companies beyond A. SBF got special treatment. Why is the question
This rules change is aimed specifically at companies such as Paizo. Pathfinder is based on 3.5e, which was covered under the OGL, and going forward they must pay 25% of their revenue to WotC, and cannot sell any content for the system outside of printed material (no video games, etc)
Only for content Paizo makes that's based off of OGL 1.1
What's WotC going to do about all the Pathfinder books out there? Round them up and burn them? Those Pathfinder books are still licensed OGL 1.0 by Paizo.
Only for content Paizo makes that's based off of OGL 1.1
The key here is that this is dependent on whether or not WotC can revoke the older licenses.
Part of the issue here is there's a clause in OGL1.0 that suggests it's possible for WotC to come along at a later time and basically change what is considered an "authorized" license.
The language[1] is in #9:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated
Agents may publish updated versions of this License.
You may use any authorized version of this License
to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game
Content originally distributed under any version of
this License.
This reads to me like they can come along at a later time and essentially say "OGL1.0a is no longer authorized" and thus everyone will be forced to move to 1.1 or cease any distribution of content issued under that license.
Whether that's enforceable is really down to what a court says.
Who could possibly be claiming that WotC is going to go from house to house looking for already purchased material under a license that was entirely legal at the time?
Also, all copyrights and patents are monopolies. To say that D&D has a monopoly on D&D after revoking permission for the public to create content based on D&D can't be controversial.
> Who could possibly be claiming that WotC is going to go from house to house looking for already purchased material under a license that was entirely legal at the time?
Cool. So I copy Pathfinder 1.0's rules, using the license Paizo gave me in the Pathfinder 1.0 rule manual. Its almost the same system as D&D 3.5, but the license is from Paizo, not from WotC.
If WotC lawyers come after me, they can pound sand.
> Also, all copyrights and patents are monopolies. To say that D&D has a monopoly on D&D after revoking permission for the public to create content based on D&D can't be controversial.
They gave it away using OGL 1.0. There are now game systems based off of Pathfinder (itself, also an OGL game). Does WotC's sudden revocation of the license somehow apply to my Pathfinder books?
They didn't even write Pathfinder. It'd be insane for them to try to revoke my Pathfinder license of OGL.
Why is this insane? It seems like you're simply describing derived works. The reason derived works are so reliable in open source software is that the license grants used to do the derivation are irrevocable. But licenses are revocable by default; GPL goes out of its way to be irrevocable. The concern (and Hasbro's recent statements) is that 1.0a does not.
GPLv3 does, but GPLv2 has basically the same language as the OGL v1.0a in terms of the revocability, share-alike nature and "or later" clause, just with GNU replaced by Wizards and software references like the distinction between source and binary removed (in fact, it seems likely the OGL just copied GPLv2)
Apache prior to 2.0, all versions of MIT or BSD also do not go out of their way to be irrevocable.
Yep. I'm not super interested at all in tabletop RPGs, but the licensing controversy here is super fascinating. I've read some reasons for OGL 1.0-reliers to be optimistic, but the whole thing seems pretty unsettled. If 1.0's revocability holds up, most HN'ers assumptions about how licensing of WOTC property works are going to be broken, because we've gotten so comfortable with FOSS's comparatively sane norms.
Like, if Wizards does get their way here, it seems like a death knell for the MIT, GPLv2 and BSD licenses in their current form. It would render them unwise to use in commercial code or as referenced dependencies of open source codebase as the author could revoke it any time, as well as invalid to incorporate MIT or BSD code into GPLv3 or Apache 2.0 licensed projects as you do not have the permission to grant an irrevocable license to your sublicensees
No: the irrevocability of the mainstream FOSS licenses has already been tested.
People are doing a lot of axiomatic reasoning on this thread: "FOSS works this way, so the WOTC license should work similarly". Nope! Your best bet is probably just to go read actual legal analyses (that's all I'm doing, reading and relaying things).
The legal analyses I've found fall on one of two sides:
1. IP licenses, especially one sided take it or leave it licenses, are revocable, sometimes even if the license expressly says otherwise because of restrictions on perpetuities.
2. A license turns into a contract when there is consideration from the other side. Licensing your own work under a license because of a virality/share-alike clause has mixed reactions on if its consideration but more fall on the side that it is than it isn't.
Neither of these positions would seem to be to distinguish the OGL from GPLv2 here, and position 2 would set a position where OGL is not revocable but MIT/BSD are.
Creative Commons also made the same change at about the same time. I wish I knew more about why exactly everyone did this -- I haven't been able to find contemporary discussions that are clear, although I suspect I just haven't looked hard enough.
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
Just because OGL 1.1 exists doesn't mean that OGL 1.0 / clause 9 stops existing. My license to use OGL 1.0 works seems to continue.
See above. Whether "1.0 keeps working" is (as I understand it) the revocability question. If it's revocable, 1.0 does not keep working. If it isn't, it does.
Copyright doesn't cover game mechanics, just the specific expression of them.
There are even entire game lines that mechanically recreate older editions of D&D in their entirety, all of which are entirely legal under copyright law.
From OGL 1.0:
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive License with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/OGL%20License
From Gizmodo:
One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license”
That part in section 9 doesn't say that it invalidates the part in section 4, though. Reading it strictly, claiming an earlier license is "unauthorized" would merely mean that you can't use the earlier license to redistribute content put out under the later license, not that you can't use the earlier license at all.
Yeah, and crucially, all of the talk of WotC wanting to revoke OGL 1.0 as applied to existing material is speculation based on the leaked draft discussing its authorization -- there's no specific language claiming it is "revoked". My guess would be that they want to make it clear that despite clause 9, you can't distribute 1.1 material under the 1.0 license.
It's a clusterfuck of
1. The leaked license has some really shitty terms in it
2. Folk might be misinterpreting one particular part to mean something other than intended, but its getting the main focus right now (and also treated as absolute fact!)
3. It's leaked so WotC was completely unprepared to answer questions and/or do PR around this
If I was e.g. Paizo I would be very urgently demanding clarification, but since I'm not I'm content to wait and see what happens without getting too outraged, yet.
(I will 100% boycott WotC/D&D/MTG/etc if they actually do try to revoke 1.0 material, though.)
So if I walk into an arcade, and the owner stops and says “hey, we’ve had some incidents recently and you need to write down your name and phone number on this sheet of paper before you can play anything”, all the arcade cabinets suddenly stop being video games? That doesn’t really make any sense.
https://github.com/casey/just