REFAC: Shift terminology to Autonomy and harden CLI via socat

This commit is contained in:
2026-04-14 09:37:40 -04:00
parent b1656d0835
commit da0919149e
59 changed files with 201 additions and 153 deletions

View File

@@ -1,18 +1,18 @@
#+TITLE: v0.1.0 Launch & Marketing Plan
#+AUTHOR: Amr
#+FILETAGS: :marketing:release:psf:
#+FILETAGS: :marketing:release:autonomy:
#+STARTUP: content
* Overview
With the v0.1.0 "Sovereign MVP" released, the goal is to leverage GitHub's social graph to build a community of early adopters, contributors, and power users who resonate with the "Thin Harness, Fat Skills" and "Local-First" philosophy.
With the v0.1.0 "Autonomous MVP" released, the goal is to leverage GitHub's social graph to build a community of early adopters, contributors, and power users who resonate with the "Thin Harness, Fat Skills" and "Local-First" philosophy.
* 1. Licensing Strategy
Before wide promotion, the project's license must align with its goals.
- **MIT License (Current):** Maximum adoption, frictionless for developers to embed in their own tools. Good for rapid growth.
- **GPLv3 / AGPLv3:** Enforces copyleft. Ensures any modifications or integrations by corporations must remain open-source. Protects the "Sovereign" ethos from proprietary enclosure.
- **GPLv3 / AGPLv3:** Enforces copyleft. Ensures any modifications or integrations by corporations must remain open-source. Protects the "Autonomous" ethos from proprietary enclosure.
- **Dual Licensing:** Open-source for individuals, commercial license for enterprise usage (if monetization is a future goal).
*Decision Needed:* Do we stick with MIT, or switch to a copyleft license (AGPL) to protect the sovereign nature of the project?
*Decision Needed:* Do we stick with MIT, or switch to a copyleft license (AGPL) to protect the autonomous nature of the project?
* 2. The GitHub Migration & Setup
To maximize visibility, the repository must be optimized for GitHub's ecosystem.