Post AimdPa5Odc1IWKoQG8 by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
(DIR) More posts by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
(DIR) Post #AimNKcE1etJWRNSW3M by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T08:42:37Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
What a bad start
(DIR) Post #AimNiDB6R1GThyLL72 by warriormaster@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T08:46:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux In that case Unreal Engine is open-source
(DIR) Post #AimOLH0u6mDUtiCOTQ by FSMaxB@mastodon.cloud
2024-06-10T08:53:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux I guess this means everything is OpenSource as long as someone still has access to the code. (which does happen, especially when companies go bankrupt and only binary builds of a product remain after a decade or two).
(DIR) Post #AimPIisW9RfIP6ck9A by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T09:00:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@FSMaxB Every source code leak means it is open source
(DIR) Post #AimPgkhN2G5300rsdU by danmac@aus.social
2024-06-10T09:08:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux isn't that basically the MIT license with an extra clause?
(DIR) Post #AimPtmRhqleMBPkmOm by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T09:10:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danmac Not at all, first issue is it's basically saying that any source code you can see is open source, which would mean leaked code is open source
(DIR) Post #AimR6jfXaMslI0xwcy by danb@fosstodon.org
2024-06-10T09:24:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux Hi Brodie, If you have not seen, Rossmann has offered to answer my questions on this via Reddit regarding my comments on this, just awaiting a response:https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1da8nld/this_week_in_selfhosted_7_june_2024/
(DIR) Post #AimS5vRCRbjtSDR40u by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T09:35:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danb I was not aware of that actually, hopefully you get some sort of response out of it. I have a pretty similar take as you do in your blog post. License your software how you want but it's not open source, regular people are already confused enough about the terms source available and open source without another definition floating around.
(DIR) Post #AimSGyqO7Vu1ChULsO by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T09:36:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danb Actually I was considering reaching out to you to see if you'd be interested in coming on my podcast to chat about licensing, not necessarily just what Futo is doing but the general importance of keeping this terminology clear
(DIR) Post #AimVdQjVPTbzvvfLRw by nicemicro@fosstodon.org
2024-06-10T10:15:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @danb yes please, I would love to have someone talk about licenses, because many in the linux world thinks that you can just bundle any software you want with your distro, and if you don't install stuff automatically, you must be a deranged Stallmanite who doesn't care about the users.When it comes to non-free software, every piece is its own separate thing with different conditions. I would love to hear more details from someone who is in the know.
(DIR) Post #AimWG6CRga15XodnqS by danb@fosstodon.org
2024-06-10T10:21:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux Sure! I don't have prior podcast experience but happy to have a chance to advocate for open source and clear discussion around licensing.To be clear, I'm not a legal expert nor do I have thorough multi-decade experience in this field, but I have a fair bit of thoughts, insight and understanding from my interested in this over the last few years, particularly through my confusion cases project (https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases).
(DIR) Post #AimWSzmupswPQIqi7U by gurristech@fosstodon.org
2024-06-10T10:24:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux Louis openly attacked anyone who didn't agree with him and labeled them as "stallmanites". It's sad, but corporate interests have clearly won over moral values in this case.
(DIR) Post #AimX0AJciQk9d7xrXs by danmac@aus.social
2024-06-10T10:30:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux they're not wrong. Also you really want to wade into the morass of what different people consider open source?**This was retorical, I assume you will.
(DIR) Post #AimXzcLT7G3SEA88Nk by sayartyler@toots.tylerdavis.xyz
2024-06-10T10:41:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux Big oof
(DIR) Post #AimZTWmQTJGnboZ7Ts by ck@chaos.social
2024-06-10T10:57:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @danb FWIW I believe that the term Open Source has been watered down enough for us to stop using it when we actually mean FOSS. The F (free as in freedom) is the important part after all and the hardest to convey when its implicitly included in the Open Source definition.
(DIR) Post #AimbEZQCZHlDMlAL0C by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T11:18:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danb I did come across that repo when looking through the blog. We don't just have to talk about licenses, I'm sure you've got plenty to say about bookstack as well
(DIR) Post #AimdPa5Odc1IWKoQG8 by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-10T11:42:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danb What is the best way to sort out the details of when, DMs, email?
(DIR) Post #AimejR2073mQBRFs3M by danb@fosstodon.org
2024-06-10T11:57:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux Either is fine, DM via here or email via email[at]danb.me
(DIR) Post #AimfXi6itkclciR9f6 by warriormaster@mastodon.social
2024-06-10T12:06:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux invite Louis Rossmann to your podcast to discuss this issue.
(DIR) Post #Ainhsmp8x4YpOnLrnc by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-11T00:07:17Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Blisterexe Don't get me wrong they're free to license there code in anyway they want to, but my point is that it is not open source
(DIR) Post #AipnqFToKHVdqsHzd2 by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-12T00:22:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidlove @danmac Those banned modifications might be things you would like to ban, however, they are counter to the open source defintion
(DIR) Post #AipoP7ZZiSk7Spc7m4 by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-12T00:24:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidlove My point is regarding the first line as the accepted open source definition, Futo completely misinterprets it. As for the banned modifications in Futo's definition, whilst they may be things you would like to stop the first 2 points run directly counter to the Open Source Definition @danmac
(DIR) Post #AipqmFsnBaFPo0lHBA by immibis@social.immibis.com
2024-06-12T00:26:18.263803Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @davidlove @danmac They are counter to what the OSI thinks open source should be. However, the OSI just represents cloud platform companies and isn't an authority. Only one of the restrictions is actually a serious problem: the one where you can't take the payment links out.
(DIR) Post #AipqmHPRVfxWXZ2ri4 by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-12T00:56:26Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@immibis @danmac @davidlove Rather than attempting to squat on the term open source, it makes considerably more sense to use the term which already means what Futo is doing https://faircode.io/
(DIR) Post #AiprqEizX8CzKIdiNM by danmac@aus.social
2024-06-12T01:08:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @immibis @davidlove I'd never heard of that before, so maybe neither have they?Also I still don't think there is a definition of Open Source, because like English it's constantly being changed and no one can agree.
(DIR) Post #AipxXETSq84AlxhLiC by toiletpaper@shitposter.world
2024-06-12T02:12:35.738974Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux This was pretty much the distinction that RMS was trying to make relative to ESR between "free/libre open source software" vs just "open source software". One is free as in freedom, while the other is access to source code, but not necessarily "freedom" in the sense of being able to own, modify and redistribute the code.
(DIR) Post #AiqDunxKgTewkCvmV6 by tyil@fedi.tyil.nl
2024-06-12T05:16:04.280Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online Seems like an okay start to me, it's not really wrong. If you want to have actual freedom to do something with said source code you're looking for free software, not open source.
(DIR) Post #AiqEtKqhW9K08Rgyi8 by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-12T05:26:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tyil Free software by it's very nature is less free for the developer, so the users have more freedom
(DIR) Post #AiqF3bZMCswUt7TccC by tyil@fedi.tyil.nl
2024-06-12T05:28:54.364Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online It limits the developers ability to fuck over its potential users, yes. I personally don't see how that is bad, but this is also irrelevant to the complaint raised in the OP. It is correct that open source does not imply anything about the usability of souce code, it just means that the source code is available. If you want any freedom to use the source code, you're better off to look into free software, which does guarantee this.
(DIR) Post #AiqGHfoJKp4K3Ak9fU by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-12T05:42:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tyil It's not bad persee, but Open Source and Free Software serve very different goals. But to the main point, open source does not just mean access to the source code, this is explicitly stated in the Open Source Definition
(DIR) Post #AiqGiu9G8Qo0KxWifo by tyil@fedi.tyil.nl
2024-06-12T05:47:34.079Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online An after-the-fact definition, which is not agreed upon by many. Unlike the free software definition, which was made up front and seems to be quite clear to everyone, even corporations which fear it for that very reason.They do indeed serve very different goals, open source is mostly a malleable PR gimmick, whereas free software is giving strict rules about user freedom. Open source is what giant corporations love to make their users feel good, free software is what users love to enjoy software freedom.
(DIR) Post #AiqVptj1baG6Me34Fc by BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online
2024-06-12T08:36:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tyil Free software just means software I don't pay for, free software has this exact same baggage
(DIR) Post #AiqcMxzhLztYswzzw8 by Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net
2024-06-12T09:50:08.065879Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Freedom software"
(DIR) Post #AiqcZXbYmQ36nxhjbU by thatguyoverthere@shitposter.world
2024-06-12T09:52:25.294652Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @tyil wat
(DIR) Post #AiqcgnTeAJ6M3jSlkG by thatguyoverthere@shitposter.world
2024-06-12T09:53:44.001086Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux @tyil free beer!
(DIR) Post #AiqlfsXmjzsh4U2GuW by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-06-12T11:34:13.594143Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux >Free software by it's very nature is less free for the developer, so the users have more freedomThis claim doesn't make any sense.In all situations free from corporate degeneracy, the developer is the copyright holder and so is free to decide as to what license to use.Freedom defending licenses like the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are designed to give everyone freedom (both the users and the developers).After all - both can exercise the 4 freedoms, plus there are freedom defending mechanisms ensuring that nobody can go and proprietarize things and remove freedoms >Free software just means software I don't pay forYes, unfortunately due to marketing, most people don't know that free means freedom and that free has nothing to do with gratis, other than how it's possible to say or write; "free of charge".The next time you see an ad that says that something is "free" - I suggest you think and work out how the con works - I see few ads, but every single one I've seen which uses "free", uses it to refer to extremely proprietary things that aren't gratis either.Resolving the confusion is quite simple - you just need to drive the point home that free means freedom and the listener will never misunderstand again (too bad there's some people who have realized this, but continue to be wrong on the internet out of spite for freedom).>free software has this exact same baggage"open source" has exponentially more baggage than free software.There is only one natural meaning for "open source", that is - "the source code is publicly available" and there is no succulent, concise and correct explanation as to why "open source" is more than that (I would like to be proved wrong).The "open source definition" isn't bad, but will take at least 10 minutes to explain and most people *will not remember* anything but the natural meaning afterwards.I would regard "open source" as acceptable if most of its supporters actually knew the "osd" was a thing (and actually followed the definition) and the "osi" didn't approve multiple proprietary licenses - but instead they keep approving proprietary licenses and regard usage that stretch the term so far it ends up utterly meaningless as all well and good.But what would you really expect from a movement specifically intended to attack free software by re-framing it in ways that removes all mention of freedom and thus pleases proprietary software companies, who don't like who people even get a chance to learn that their whole business model consists of attacking the entire community.
(DIR) Post #Aiqp3qdZmTa5yEriHw by tyil@fedi.tyil.nl
2024-06-12T12:12:19.374Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online Not really, but people who aren't very good with language will mistake the concept of the word "free" thanks to several decades of corporate marketing, yes. This is nothing new to any field, I think, but it's definitely not the "exact same".
(DIR) Post #AiqpLiKlOKt3QkaKnI by tyil@fedi.tyil.nl
2024-06-12T12:15:33.464Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@thatguyoverthere@shitposter.world @BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online This is a very common (and in my opinion quite stupid) "counter-argument" from some people against free software. The idea is that the developer gives up their freedom to do things like making the source code closed-source proprietary software, thus they are limiting that particular freedom.It's similar to saying that the law limits the freedom of murderers to freely kill someone, therefore it is actually not desirable. Technically true, but in my opinion not very valuable to any meaningful discussion.