![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/23b10d50-5c1f-45da-be43-07f234fc229b.png)
I think you might have a point there. I for one was not aware of the gay frog situation before that whole drama and I’m grateful it was brought to my attention
I think you might have a point there. I for one was not aware of the gay frog situation before that whole drama and I’m grateful it was brought to my attention
This article talks about galaxy formations and stars bursting, curious how you jump to “life” from that?
Alright, thanks. Sounds like the existing fields could have been leveraged for that tbh, seems given that the newer field would be overused/misused
Oh, missed the plural, sorry about that. But is that one the same as “Album artists” or yet another one then?
I agree with most of your points but the artist tag in ID3 tags existed way before streaming music services was a thing. Hell it existed in versions.
So what’s that about?
But I never used a royal "We", in fact "we" was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.
Instead of you arguing my "cheap rhetorical skills", how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.
I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.
What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?
Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument "i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point". You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I'm past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn't a threat to open source in whatever form
Imo it's not been redefined at all. People are just pushing the boundaries of what it means and creating absolutist views on what it should mean. There is a space for that sure, but shaming companies that define where their own boundaries are is not the way of it.
If we do that, you are challenging what software freedom actually is if you ask me
Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that's on you.
If the people selling are passing someone else's work as their own, that's stealing. Otherwise, it's just Free Software working as intended.
Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and "working as intented"?
If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don't get to call it "Open Source" or anything like that.
There are so many licenses for this model already, I'm inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself and your attitude in these threads are mildly said, off putting.
I am a big fan of OSI and support their work, but you are treating them (based in what i can read in this thread) like some holy, all defining entity, of what is open source. They are not, and true open source, cannot, and should not, ever derive its power from a central agency setting rules and definitions. If that happens, that will be the end of open source.
Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us
Edit: some autocomplete stupid grammar
I have been battling a similar battle but landed on Obsidian. There is a community plugin called “Tasks” that fixed most of my issues. Takes some tinkering in writing the queries but it unlocked most of the functionality I missed
… Is a sentance I never thought I would read in a million years
Yeah, i know the pain. Screen settings can help (lower your light) else Firefox with dark reader can help as well perhaps
But it wasn’t that long ago all browsers standardized support for detecting dark mode so it will likely become better as the years go. I hope
Jeezy creezy, why do people dont understand that it’s not about personal preference or that dark mode is not for everyone (far from it).
Not in theory, in practice.
But as ono points out, I can screenshot or copy paste whatever I want, what is anyone going to do with that?
GDPR and the right to be forgotten is extremely hard to apply to any federated media, as it applies to the entities where you put the media in question.
It can’t really stop, and it, GDPR and EU, has never pretended it can stop storage of said media. But if you are an entity that is responsible for, and collect that data, then your are responsible for that data.
Federation breaks that model. GDPR works against centralized corporations retaining your data. It will be fun to see what happens the coming decade with these laws.
In general, any data that can be used to tack you, such as IP number that is sent with the request, is identifiable information so an anonymous username is not enough in itself
I find the amount of engineers who have built an “alternative to google on their spare time” truly fascinating. Because if you think that is possible, IMO, you have no idea what Google actually built.
Its just not a search engine, and also, as a search engine, it stopped being a good model to follow a decade ago.
Build on the ideas and build something new instead