The repository for the previously private submodule is still called Floorp-private-components, though it’s public.

https://blog.ablaze.one/4125/2024-03-11/ is a maintainer’s official response to… Reddit, which crossposted me apparently. Hooray!

    • owen@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yep…when software advertised as “Open” uses that type licence, it goes straight to the trash.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        7 months ago

        Normally I’d agree, but it doesn’t actually seem to be advertised as open source.

        That said, it’s still IMO a terrible licence for code, the “share alike” doesn’t require sharing source code at all, because it’s not designed for code.

        • owen@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Yeah my bad…the title of the post said Open Source when I first saw it and I never clicked on the repo itself

          #FloorpDidNothingWrong

      • bloup@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m curious to hear the philosophical reasons that lead you to feel so strongly about this.

        • owen@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I don’t trust people who use misleading language. I’m fine with buying or using closed source or source available software, but don’t call it open and don’t say your ‘F’ is for Freedom.

          • bloup@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Personally, when I read their blog post, I didn’t feel like I was being lied to. I felt like I was reading the words of a person who has not spent very much time speaking English. I do agree, however, that the language they happened to use is not entirely representative of what they’re doing, but I don’t think it was malicious.

            • owen@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yeah, I wasn’t talking about Floorp in particular. In fact, I read ‘Open Source’ from the Lemmy post title and attributed that language to Floorp itself.

              After checking the project, I agree with what you’ve said here. Thanks for your thoughts

        • onlinepersona@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          That just feels like communism: a nice, idealistic concept to achieve in its entirety but a good inspiration towards a better system. In the real world, both are ripe for exploitation. Communism is perfect for exploitation by power hungry humans, GNU software is perfect for exploitation by companies.

          CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’d understand if you said that the FSF feels like communism, but how the heck is that specific philosophy in support of selling FOSS software communism?

            • onlinepersona@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              GNU philosophy feels like communism. Also that standard of purity - no exceptions.

              If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license

              This leads to people conflating non-free and opensource or tightly coupling opensource to FLOSS - even though F and L are qualifiers for OSS. OSS isn’t forcibly F and L. “X is not opensource because you can’t use it commercially nor sell it”.

              CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                7 months ago

                FOSS was created as a compromise between the FSF and the OSI, and the latter’s Open Source Definition includes this:

                Free redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

                Keep in mind that the OSI was made for the purposes of popularizing the term “open source”, which was created because some wanted it to be more pragmatic than political. This is a consensus.

                • onlinepersona@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  That’s really great for people living in the 1990s. However for people and businesses in the now, with megacorps taking advantage of their dominant positions to sell an opensource product without contributing back and killing the business that provides the opensource product, hanging on to a lucid dream mean the death of the opensource product and loss of livelihoods.
                  Staying purist in the face of reality is one thing: delusional.

                  Maybe someday we’ll have the alternative of “The morgue is full of people who had the right of way” for FLOSS purists who didn’t want to give in to reality.

                  CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

          • duplexsystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Free software is very much like communism, the difference is that cloning something costs nothing, imagine if we could use a ray gun to clone any object, then communism would no longer be even remotely idealistic.

            • onlinepersona@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Both fail in certain areas once exposed to the real world. Communism fails because of human psychology and scale. Free software fails when competing against megacorps, those who don’t follow the spirit nor the letter of free software licenses, and when infringements are not enforced.

              Megacorps don’t get to be megacorps by being nice. They will exploit anything to get ahead, and free software providing work for free is a benediction that they will happily exploit. People who get offended when free software providers defend themselves against such corps by changing their license to non-commercial or non-cloud compete are just victim blaming.

              CC BY-NC-SA 4.0