Post B2DQQeATdXOYaDw1rc by _anti@novoa.nagoya
(DIR) More posts by _anti@novoa.nagoya
(DIR) Post #B2B1zhuKq2dx9A5P4C by fiore@brain.worm.pink
2026-01-11T13:41:17.541510Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@r0se @blitter yes agreedalso libreoffice , thats good too . been trying out rnote , its great for handwritten notes but editing pdfs in it results in like huge size increase for some reason , its very earlyware
(DIR) Post #B2DHdZmENICH8qgUHw by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-12T15:46:05.884860Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@blitter Okular is a free software program that allows editing pdf forms, drawing, highlighting, inserting text and image stamps and then allows saving the pdf without needing to print it and therefore losing the textual information.Evince also works fine with documents that have all pdf forms.
(DIR) Post #B2DQQeATdXOYaDw1rc by _anti@novoa.nagoya
2026-01-12T16:52:46.586Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@blitter@mastodon.catgirl.cloud @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com Honest question: Why don't you want to be associated with "open source" people and prefer to call urself a free software advocate? Is the difference on the copyright or is there something else?
(DIR) Post #B2DQQfRWtcd6XOvA5A by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-12T17:24:35.141874Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_anti @blitter "open source" is a movement that was started in 1998 as an attack on free software, as that would best serve corporates, who don't like hearing about freedom, or people even learning that freedom exists.The concept is that if a bit of gratis work is done for a big business, they'll go hire the developers and such money will therefore allow developing better quality software, faster.To not hurt the corpos feelings, typically the license of choice is a weak license, such as MIT expat or BSD 3-clause, or sometimes Apache 2.0, but in rare cases, sometimes even the GPLv2-only is a choice (but the intention that such license is only ever enforced against freedom and never for freedom, against corporates violating the GPLv2).What happens in 99% of cases of an "open source" project, is that a corpo goes "cool, gratis labor" and uses the software, but proceeds to not hire any of the developers or make any donations - most corpo's even go so far to forbid their employees from contributing back any changes and I've even seen a case of a corpo demanding that changes be removed from a project, as an employee decided to ignore their restrictions and make their job easier by submitting back changes.There is also the; https://opensource.org/osd (which most "open source" supporters have never seen), which was more or less taking the free software definition; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms lengthening it to an unreasonable length (Debian did that) and then making it looser - for example the "OSI" so far has approved at least 2 proprietary licenses; Artistic-1.0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense and the "NASA Open Source Agreement" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASAIf almost all projects that branded themselves as "open source" actually followed the "open source definition" and didn't use the NOSA or Artistic-1.0 license, that would be fine - as almost all of such projects would be free software.But what happens in practice is that most projects that are branded as "open source" contain proprietary software and are developed on github or gitlab or other proprietary software+SaaSS hosting and with discord and vscode usually too (therefore, such projects are not "open source", as they do not meet the "osd" - rather those projects consist of public development of proprietary software).This occurs in practice, as if any proprietary software is ever tolerated, "open source" developers will just keep adding more and more convenient proprietary software and will never take any of it back out.Yes, despite being the poster child of "open source" (it's the only case I'm aware of where the development model practically succeeded), Linux is not "open source", as quite a lot of Linux is implemented as proprietary software that runs on peripheral devices (I estimate Linux is only 60% source-available).Even in the case of a "open source" project that is mostly trivial and doesn't it itself contain proprietary software despite being developed with it - generally the typical copyright practice is to dump a copy of MIT expat into the root, which doesn't legally mean anything - at bare minimum - there needs to be an unambiguous statement that a project is under x license - but really there should be copyright headers in each nontrivial file.Therefore, I cannot support "open source" and do not want to be associated with such proprietary software developers.What I can support and get behind is projects that proudly state they are free software and will remain free software and ensuring that by making sure the software is competently licensed with a free lciense, with license headers in each nontrivial file, license under the GPLv3-{or-later,proxy}, or AGPLv3-{or-later,proxy}, or LGPLv3-{or-later,proxy}, or LGPLv2.1-or-later or GPLv2-or-later and also with the policy that if any proprietary software is included by mistake, it will be removed once discovered.GNU is really the only large project that has committed to always being free software (and it does keep its copyright in order) - but there are also a few other projects that have committed to remaining free.