FYI - Burr is designed with recursion in mind, i.e. the ability to kick off Burr within Burr. So you could have an action that is managing several Burr subgraphs... Or you write your own management layer here.
Burr just helps you, the engineer, to really control the primitives. Then adds some cool features you don't have to think about -- like observability :)
Cause I submitted it. Learning the Apache process and cranking on other things has been a slow process. But we've got some momentum and beginning more regular releases.
Otherwise the larger picture is that MCP is a land grab for building an eco-system around integrations to get access to data. Your LLM agent is not valuable if it can't access things for you... and from a market perspective enterprise pays a lot for this stuff already, and yes MCP is not thought out at all for Enterprise really... At least thankfully they added stateless connections to the spec...
Tomato, tomato. If it’s not FOSS, I’m not going to sign off on wasting time on it.
(Yes, of course I use proprietary services where necessary and they can’t be avoided. This isn’t one of those cases. Example of things where I’m pretty adamant about it: server OSes. Databases. Programming languages. Web servers.)
> Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable,
For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.
My understanding is it’s the opposite: that license is the only thing granting you usage rights. In the absence of a contract, or words in the license to the contrary, they could revoke those rights on a whim. It’s not so much that you have a default right to use their proprietary software and they may issue something that revokes it. It’s that you have no right to use their software except their continued good will.
The GPL says:
> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.
Source available doesn't allow you to build on that software or patch it the way you see fit.
Heck, even some source available licenses doesn't allow you to compile that thing, let alone get parts and use it elsewhere.
However, I somewhat like source available licenses currently, because they're neat little mines that sneak in to training sets of generative AI models and make the models less suitable for serious work.
How does it make the models less suitable? Wouldn't more high quality source code help improve it? If it was closed source entirely it couldn't be trained on.
If it’s trained on proprietary software and then injects non-Free code into your project, you may have all kinds of unplanned legal exposure. That’s what makes such a model less suitable.
yep, agreed. I think that's another way to view the current state of "GenAI" tooling (e.g. all those complicated frameworks that received $M in funding) and why things like https://www.anthropic.com/research/building-effective-agents fall on deaf ears...
Howdy! Erick from LangChain here. If anyone is seeing version conflicts on particular packages, please let me know!
These usually stem from overly strict constraints in the underlying sdks for the integrations, and in general we've been pretty successful asking for those constraints to be loosened. The main "problem" constraint we've seen in the past has been on httpx. Curious if you've seen others!
