Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Oct-2023 19:36:11 JST Bricky

   • SuperDicq
   @SuperDicq Just because it's open-source doesn't mean it's free/libre software. Nothing more than a buzzword.
   • Embed this notice
     Sexy Moon (moon@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Oct-2023 19:36:10 JST Sexy Moon

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @thatbrickster @SuperDicq I thought futo org was about free software, is it really only source-available?
   • Embed this notice
     Sexy Moon (moon@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Oct-2023 19:40:19 JST Sexy Moon

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @thatbrickster @SuperDicq I know, I thought futo was about open source but I guess I was wrong
   • Embed this notice
     Bricky (thatbrickster@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Oct-2023 19:40:20 JST Bricky

     in reply to

     • Sexy Moon
     • SuperDicq
     @Moon It has a non-Free licence. https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE
     
     @SuperDicq
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Oct-2023 22:41:48 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     @roboneko So tell me, what do you think it means?
   • Embed this notice
     Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Oct-2023 22:41:49 JST Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @thatbrickster @SuperDicq everyone knows what "open source" means. anyone who says otherwise has an ideological axe to grind one way or the other
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 20-Oct-2023 21:26:05 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     @roboneko Ah yes, yet another "open source" definition to add to my list.
     
     I can confidently say that it isn't correct that everyone knows such definition, as most people don't even understand how derivative works, work.
     
     The biggest problem with "open source" is that every single supporter either believes it means source-available or comes up with their own special definition.
     
     
     GNU/Jihad against "FOSS"!
     
     
     One of the reasons I'm a free software supporter is that such GNU/Camp has no problems in agreeing on what is free software.
     
     Although people try to claim that free only means price, once you has grasped that free means freedom and proprietary things don't become free merely because they are gratis - you don't confuse free and gratis ever again.
     
     Free can also be substituted with libre with no change in meaning either - "open source" can't do that.
   • Embed this notice
     Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Friday, 20-Oct-2023 21:26:06 JST Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki that you won't land in legal hot water for creating derivatives (various restrictions notwithstanding ofc). I hear OSI publishes a pretty decent definition if you want a more formal one :blobfoxsmirk:
     
     granted that more explicit terminology seems preferable to me. it's an unfortunate historical detail that we ended up with such an easily abusable term. I tend to use "FOSS" most of the time altho plenty of people will still object that it doesn't clarify whether the license is permissive :puniko_shrug: probably can't please everyone
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 21-Oct-2023 21:44:24 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     @roboneko >obviously a sensible answer might be something like "go read the OSI home page"
     Although the 10 requirements in the "OSD" aren't that bad (albeit looser than the much shorter 4 freedoms), I am fully confident that a typical reader of that page will soon forget the requirements, considering that I've read such many times and I can't remember more than 3.
     
     >disingenuously trying to grind an ideological axe
     GNU/Axe requires regular grinding to keep the edge honed to Planck length sharpness; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
     
     >who has actually spent any amount of time in the domain, knows in some general sense what "open source" means
     Yes, those who use free software generally tend to naturally gain an understanding of what freedom in software is, but such understanding is ruined if the wishy-washy "open source" ideals are adopted, as such really boils down to;"We'll use open source software if it's convenient and we'll say things like open source everything, but actually, we'll gleefully continue to run lots of proprietary software as long as we think it's convenient to do so" (I noticed this pattern in every "open source" supporter I've met so far).
     
     >it is a commonly understood shared concept.
     Source-available is a commonly understood shared concept, but nothing more.
     
     >the genuinely clueless don't know what "libre" or "FOSS" or any of the other terms mean either
     Yes, that's why it's important to use non-confusing terminology that can be explained within 2 sentences, so even the genuinely clueless can be enlightened without a hitch.
     
     Explaining libre only needs once sentence even - "Libre means liberty in software".
     
     >what's wrong with FOSS as a term?
     "FOSS" is believed to mean gratis, source-available software by most people.
     
     Actually explaining what it means and having any listener understand fully what it actually means is a disaster; "FOSS means that the software is free as in freedom and also meets the open source definition by the open source initiative with 10 requirements, with number 1 being ...".
     
     
     It's very disappointing that people are afraid of btfo'ing hundreds of years of marketing cons by explaining that free means freedom and instead support wishy-washy movements, merely because that doesn't require not agreeing to the lies of criminal companies that commit countless crimes against humanity.
   • Embed this notice
     Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Saturday, 21-Oct-2023 21:44:25 JST Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki obviously I was pandering to you. obviously a sensible answer might be something like "go read the OSI home page"
     
     > it isn't correct that everyone knows such definition
     
     anyone who isn't disingenuously trying to grind an ideological axe, and who has actually spent any amount of time in the domain, knows in some general sense what "open source" means. it is a commonly understood shared concept. the only people who struggle with it are those with agendas and those who are clueless
     
     the genuinely clueless don't know what "libre" or "FOSS" or any of the other terms mean either. it's all opaque jargon to them. but then that shouldn't really matter given that they will (more or less by definition) lack the skills to modify their own software. but even most clueless people are likely understand concepts like "vendor lockin" well enough. convincing them that it should actually matter to them enough that they should change their behavior, well, good luck with that
     
     > GNU/Jihad against "FOSS"!
     
     what's wrong with FOSS as a term?
     
     FLOSSLGITBBQ+ :blobwoozy: