And I'm just sitting here looking at the Codex desktop mac app wondering why a list, a chat window and textbox require a 579 MB download (compressed) and 4 GB of RAM.

An entire copy of libreoffice, for one.

Climate doomers: Climate change will kill us all by the end of the century!

AI doomers: End of the century? Hold my beer.

dang and team, perhaps it makes sense to special-case .name domains in the domain hint, like you do for GitHub and Ex-Twitter.

Wasn't it partially owned by Google? Or are they just a contributer now?

I like to compare Google and jj to Mozilla and Rust: Google employed Martin and some other maintainers, but it's always been an OSS project under the Apache 2.0 license.

That being said, there's a few things that lead to this perception: the first is that it used to be under Google's GitHub account, but is now under its own org. The second is that contributing to jj does require signing Google's CLA. That is something that is desired to change, but that's up to Google. Due to the license, the community could fork it, and still have the rights to use the code, but that would be pretty aggressive, and so everyone involved would rather work together on this than do so. The move to its own GitHub org was one example of movement in that direction, but I'm not aware of an actual timeline to remove the CLA just yet. The project will figure it out over time.

(I have a commit bit but am not a jj maintainer, so the above is my own impression from being involved in the community for the past few years.)

Thanks!

Maybe if Martin could comment - his @google.com email still appears in the repo readme, I'm assuming he doesn't have access to that box anymore - was the repo move and ownership coordinated with Google prior to his leaving?

The move from martinvonz/jj to jj-vcs/jj happened almost two years ago. https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/commit/b836e0ae9518154cd52f94e0... (from 2024-12-17) says that it was recent at that time. Google were owners even when it was under martinvonz/jj, however.

How is it under its own org, but changing the CLA is up to Google? Google must therefore administer the separate org?

I get why you may want to color this as non-Google-owned but it seems to very much still be Google-owned.

Because Martin was the lead maintainer and original author and worked at Google for over a decade until like a month ago, and so as a project it fell under their typical standards in the Google OSPO department and had a CLA applied. When it moved orgs, they had to own the org too, so they could keep CLA robot in. That's basically it. It's just a really successful project that has grown far beyond one company or person.

In theory there is now nothing stopping us (the community/project leaders) from just... Moving the repo somewhere else. We could do that. It would be a pretty sudden alienation of other Google contributors though and probably piss off their legal department -- 99% of them just submit regular fixes like any user, because they are ordinary users of JJ. They just happen to work at Google. It would just be stirring up shit for nothing. It isn't an unthinkable outcome, but it isn't one we're just going to "do" for no reason or because it would make people posting on forums happier.

Realistically a non-ownership-assigning CLA on a non-copyleft Apache 2.0 project like in this case doesn't actually mean anything or confer any power. It's all just paperwork that serves as a legal ass covering mechanism because big companies use lawyers. It's like checking the "Yes I am over 18 years old" box on a website. I say this as someone who hates the stupid CLA bot and am a contributor.

As far as actual leadership goes Google does not "own" anything in that regard, nor the day to day work, nor can it really force any of the community to do anything. There's 1 maintainer from Google out of 9 total and +95% of major contributions don't come from Googlers, ERSC, or even any particular company. They don't contribute most of the code, they don't lead most of the community, they are vastly dwarfed by the community in total size, contribution count, etc. What "ownership" or leverage do they have beyond a Github org in this setup? It's annoying but it isn't the same thing as being able to exercise meaningful levers of power, in my experience, and so most of us are just fine with it. Even if there was some stupid bullshit like a disagreement over implied trademark rights, the community could just rename and move on and Google would have nothing. That is where the real power lies.

I'm trying to come from a place of help, truly, so bear with me.

You have to get out from under Google. This would be a red flag during due diligence for many investors.

I'm not saying Google is going to fuck you over but why not just get yourself into a place where you don't need to be writing replies like this, and we don't need to be having this conversation.

And also, I would strongly recommend acquiring trademark rights as soon as possible. If a foundation is formed later you can decide what to do with them, but having them protected is a huge deal.

There's nothing starting me from creating jjhub.com tomorrow and that is a real potential threat for you.

Since I posted previously, I realized I had forgotten trademark entirely, and Google does own the trademark for jj. (See my other comments about the Mozilla/Rust connection, it was the same back then too).

It's not an issue for investors, because again, Google does not own this, and we aren't even modifying jj at this point, and are unlikely to need to. The IP is very clear and not an issue.

> There's nothing starting me from creating jjhub.com tomorrow and that is a real potential threat for you.

That's fine! There's a lot of people already doing this, today. Competition is natural.

I don’t actually know who owns the org offhand.

My point is not that it is “not Google owned” but to point out the specifics, which really matter. “Google owned” to me implies that they own the copyright to contributions, which they very much do not. That doesn’t mean that they have no control over it at all, of course, but the specific details matter a lot.

Who is the assignee in the CLA? It is not obvious to me.

You give Google the right to take your patch and use it under any license. There is no assignee because there is no reassignment.

(Also, as I just said in another comment, I forgot about trademark: if the community did want to fork, they'd have to rename.)

Would the CLA makes it easier to move away from Google and transfer the ownership to a new organization (if Google is willing)?

Doesn’t really change it at all. Because there’s no copyright assignment, it’s not any different than any other open source project that doesn’t do it, there’s no ownership to actually move. It would just be about socially what is considered upstream.

If I remember correctly, Mitchell Hashimoto uses it for Ghostty (probably under the git backend).

Then use that as the link.

Everything I can find online is referring to this one source. That doesn't tell me if it's happening or not.

"In full" is a tall order that no other OS or distro claims.

No reason Qt or quickshell is any different from any other software.

Bash is... harder, not impossible. I wouldn't rely on it.

Should be (2020) per the URL.

But in the article all these GUIs are vibe coded. Tell your AI to allow more than one window. What's the problem?

Then you'd have to contend with the rest of the list of TUI advantages over GUIs, like trivially operating them as they run on remote machines.

That is, as TFA mentions, the one good argument.

That's what RDP, VNC, etc. are for.

They are usually tied to specific user accounts, it's true. But that's something some people made up, and it doesn't have to be that way.

Well, it depends on what you want. I'm glad the Claude Code TUI runs in my terminal, for example, because that's where I do software development and interact with the file system and run other lightweight keyboard-driven TUIs that I want to use moment to moment.

Imagine if there were no terminal/pty system. Then what, I'd have to use Claude Desktop (doesn't support multiple windows) and Finder?

So no, it's not the only argument for TUIs.

`waypipe ssh HOST COMMAND` is darn simple.