No, it’s the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception.
Which… split off from the FSF and the software freedom movement. And that term was never used before they created it. They literally defined it and started it’s use.
They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.
Again, established definition. Stop trying to legitimise your self-concocted definition of “open source”.
you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone
It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don’t want to use that meaning doesn’t mean it isn’t the correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it’s that it is the primary definition and always has been.
If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source.
Uh, no. That’s called “source-available”. Terms have meanings. And from the day the words “open source” started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd
You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.
It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR
Good thing being free/open source doesn’t require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications and distribute them. No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It’s standard practice but by no means necessary.
If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can
They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).
In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.
literally the only qualification for something to be open source …
Again, terms have established meanings. See above.
It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.
I don’t see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.
But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.
What do you mean “also copyleft”? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn’t. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
And finally, here’s some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don’t ever see in free/open source licenses (because they’re horribly restrictive terms):
“If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated.”
“We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.”
Advertised as “open source”, violates several key parts of the open source definition. It’s really a “look but don’t touch” thing.
And you do realise ANY copyleft license (GPL, etc) prevents the creation of nonfree applications using that code? Making the app proprietary (yes, GrayJay counts as proprietary) is completely unnecessary.
I know Rossmann brought up NewPipe fakes on the Play Store as justification, but NewPipe is licensed under the GPL. These fakes were already illegal.
NewPipe on Android.
Fuck GrayJay, their marketing lies, and their nasty license.
Doubled down on being what?
Are you trying to argue that anything written here is false? Can you prove it?
Linus wrote a kernel, and GNU wrote the majority of the userspace at the time.
How is that coat-tails-ing? Both projects had a tremendous amount of effort poured into them. And let’s not forget GCC was the only free compiler for 20 years.
If people were asking for it to be called “GNU” only, then it’d be unfair. But they aren’t.
Fuck that.
18 here
It stops parts of Linux becoming proprietary, and becoming the dominant version users interact with. Comparisons with other kernels are irrelevant
Way to necro a thread. This point was made months ago.
Systemd likes to break standards. That’s a big reason
I think that’s GNOME’s fault. Debian allows you to do more than Ubuntu, for example by not ramming proprietary snaps down your throat when you try to use apt.
The Apple of Linux? Is that not Ubuntu?
Yep the Pinetime can last for about 2 weeks on Infinitime in my case
Fuck off Poettering. Stop trying to absorb the whole system.
EDIT: apparently systemd absorbing the whole system with it’s nonstandard, monolithic nightmare is a good thing, judging from downvotes. Carry on.
KDE Plasma on a laptop whose hardware was crap when it came out in 2009, running fine:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/R5SPEKY1VG#yzKAoNQxSjXc
GNOME, slightly sluggish:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/7JD8899CH8#NlXG8uZpm0Cd
Also just checked out your “computing guide” (which is just a loose collection of info and recommendations more than a guide), and lol’d at this paragraph [brackets mine]:
F(L)OSS means Free (Libre) Open Source software, and it means that the software is freeware [eh, no? FLOSS can be paid], AND the source code that are building blocks of software, are available openly and freely for modification, reverse engineering, compilation and studying purposes. The correct way to say it, as Richard Stallman says, is FLOSS and not FOSS. [I’m fairly sure if you ask Stallman he’ll completely reject “Open Source” all together]
KDE is for kids, GNOME is for Grownups.
Uh huh. No fanboying on your part at all. Projection?
Once again, I will send you a video later today of KDE plasma running on my 1GHz single core potato (a much slower CPU than yours) to prove that Plasma can perform. Hey, maybe I’ll also run GNOME on it for you for comparison purposes. Note that I don’t inherently have a problem with GNOME, as I don’t have the mentality that “KDE is for KGrownups”.
Because I feel like with childish statements like the one above, you’re not exactly being 100% truthful. But I can back up my argument with evidence.
An integrated GPU isn’t great, but it should run alright still. I think I disabled the dedicated GPU on the Thinkpad I was running and it still ran smoothly.
I don’t know what your circumstances were with your specific laptop, but to paint KDE as, well, shit, just because it ran badly when you tried it is not cool. Especially in the face of other people who have had fine performance on the slowest of potatoes.
Maybe your CPU’s iGPU is a poor bin, maybe you ran up against a bug in something which fucked performance, maybe your HDD was failing or just slow (if it was mechanical), who knows? Point is your one laptop is not representative of all laptops.
Display server = Xorg/Wayland, not the monitor…
Is there any particular reason you felt the need to resort to insults? I like KDE for a reason, because it does what I want and it runs well. I’m not blindly devoted to it like it’s some kind of religion. Hell, I actually prefer GTK as a library over Qt due to it’s C-based nature and I used to daily drive Cinnamon, then MATE.
KDE release nomenclature is also easy. Higher number = newer.
I… know the Plasma 6 release is new? Why is that relevant? We’re both talking about Plasma 5, and Plasma 6 is basically just mega-improved Plasma 5 anyways.
You know what, if you want, tomorrow I’ll get you a video of Plasma running on my single core 1GHz potato laptop if you like.
I see you have nothing else to say so jumped to ad hominem instead.