Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Apr-2025 14:08:22 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @djsumdog FUTO software uses a disgustingly proprietary license that denies all 4 freedoms; https://lab.vern.cc/gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/voiceinput/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md (link that works without proprietary JavaScript).
   
   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
   >You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purpose
   Denies the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0) & denies the freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
   
   >You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
   Denies the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2) & denies the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
   
   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling
   
   
   You appear to have assumed that "FOSS" means; gratis, source-available (proprietary) software, which FUTO software is.
   
   "FOSS" attempts to be neutral between the freedom of free software and the corporate boot licking of "open source", but as you can see, it spectacularily fails at even that; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
   
   >There are FOSS solutions for going the other way around (text to speech) like Piper: https://github.com/rhasspy/piper
   Piper is proprietary software, as the result of the training data is software and that software doesn't have source code.
   
   There is free software TTS's available like espeak-ng
   
   >or maybe I should try porting FUTO
   Please do not port more proprietary software to the GNU/Linux-libre OS, which is meant to be a 100% free software OS that respects the users freedom and every proprietary program added is yet another step away from that goal.
2. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 03-Mar-2025 20:52:30 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @Yoruka @davidrevoy @Linux_Is_Best There is no problem with selling free software; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling
   
   If someone personally wrote a whole browser engine in GNU C, with full HTML5 support that doesn't support JavaScript, and released it under the AGPLv3-or-later, I'd be happy to pay $20 equivalent in XMR for a copy (although I might try it out from a copy shared from someone else first).
   
   Yes, the main reason why proprietary software developers refuse to make software even source-available is because doing so would reveal the malware.
3. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 12-May-2024 18:41:47 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @charliebrownau Watching the video, despite good intentions, you're unfortunately confusing people who have likely never heard of the concept of software freedom by giving them the wrong ideas.
   
   If you release further videos, please consider how it's everyone's duty when it comes to beginners to get the information across in a non-confusing manner.
   
   This requires defining and differentiating between free software, "open source", proprietary and commercial software and making sure to use the correct term every time and also making sure to refer to GNU/Linux as GNU/Linux, or your preferred separator or any preferred correct name (LiGNUx for example) - sure this takes 2-3 minutes, but it's certainly worth it.
   
   >open source document creation
   What does this even mean? Can you define it?
   
   The only definition for "open source" I've found refers to the licensing of source code; https://opensource.org/osd and the 10 requirements aren't too bad, but such definition still ends up falling short when it comes to software freedom - after all, the "OSI" has approved multiple proprietary licenses.
   
   Going off the only definition I've found, as most documents don't have source code, it's usually nonsensical to apply "open source" to document authorship.
   
   >available information to everyone for free
   Why would the freedom of this sort of general information be restricted to the point that payment would be required?
   
   What license is the video under? I hope you selected a freedom-respecting one.
   
   >Linux mascot (Tux) in the right corner
   Can you explain the relevance of including this logo?
   
   Despite it being the poster child of "open source", Linux is NOT "open source", as it isn't even completely source-available.
   
   >both open code and closed code software
   What does this mean?
   
   I guess you're abbreviated "open source code software and closed source code software", but that's a very strange way to differentiate between the freedom of free software and the malice of proprietary software.
   
   >Closed Source Office Suites - ... Only Office ...
   Only office is free software, licensed under the GNU Affero GPL version 3 only, although it is advertised as SaaSS, with most people seemingly not self-hosting it;
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyOffice?useskin=monobook
   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
   https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
   
   The main issue I see that the "CommunityServer" is mostly C#, which means that such software is trapped to proprietary software from microsoft, despite how the source code itself is free, but I see limited amounts of C# in other implementations, which hopefully would be only be for the proprietary "integrations", which the exclusion of is a feature.
   
   I guess you are pointing out the issues of the SaaSS version of "Only Office", which is indeed free software for them, but the way that was conveyed would be confusing for everyone not on my level.
   
   >LibreOffice is not available to everyone for free
   LibreOffice is not merely gratis - it's libre.
   
   It's free software available under either the Lesser GNU GPL version 3 or the Mozilla Public License version 1.1.
   
   Although it's typically available gratis, you may sell it for any price if you can find a buyer.
   
   >Available for Linux
   The dependency list is huge, but a direct and indirect dependency is GNU gettext and gnupg (via gpgme), which makes it available for GNU/Linux.
   
   >portableapps.com is a great site to get various software
   That site doesn't seem that great as it lists quite a few proprietary software programs as "(freeware)" and but doesn't give any further details as to what that entails.
   
   If I was to recommend that site, I would point out it also includes some malware that's marked as "freeware".
   
   >If you run a business you have to train people to use different sorts of software
   A military compared microsoft office and libreoffice and found out that they were the same training and usability wise.
   
   >microsoft and other commercial software out there
   You're confusing commercial and proprietary.
   
   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling
   
   >you can add passwords ... with other software to libreoffice documents
   LibreOffice does include a built-in password feature, which is now reasonably secure.
   
   Gnumeric is free software under the GNU GPL version 2 and it's developed for GNU only - considering the GNU right there in the name.
   
   HomeBank is GPLv2 and depends on GNU gettext.
   
   According to wikipedia, keepass is GPLv2-or-later but seeing how version 2+ is written in C#, that version is probably proprietary.
   
   ghostwriter is GPLv3-or-later
4. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 00:48:25 JST 翠星石

   in reply to
   @amerika Sure the laws are all garbage rhetoric, but that doesn't make them not apply.
   
   >You like releasing free software? Nothing is stopping you.
   The government makes this hard, but once you choose a free software license, nothing more stops you.
   
   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling
   
   
   Proprietary software is successful in carrying out cases of proprietary sabotage, but when it comes to cases of actual competition, free software always wins.