In the last years, I have seen plenty of users telling or promoting certain ultra-permissive rules as part of Open Source but which are not even in the definition like the use of read-only licenses, being a good example the MEGA software.

However, I didn’t find exact source of these ideas and only believed in the misinformation of certain videos in *tube or similar.

Today, I was looking for a FLOSS VPN client to use at home as I use MATE DE and found Printunl Client promoted as Open Source. Or that was everything until I read the license.

Sam
15edit-21M

Not promoted as open source, but this shit from discord annoys the fuck out of me.

@Ninmi
91M

“[company name] <3 open source” is actually a warning sing

@Lowey
11M

Cute!

Another reason why “open” is weaker than “free”. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

@AgreeableLandscape
mod
admin
211M

GitHub. The world’s biggest host for open source projects is 100% proprietary.

Ephera
71M

Yeah, but it’s fine, because
Microsoft ❤️ [making money off of] Open-Source.

@Echedenyan
creator
31M

Yeah. I only have account for making reports and to avoid making microshit account for my sysadmin course as teachers use tools from microshit imagine.

Since I’m already here, I have another example.

So there’s this Mario fangame called Super Mario Bros. X (which was proprietary to begin with), it was abandoned by its developer long ago but the community’s still active. Some fans modded the original game and called it “SMBX2”. Their homepage stated that “SMBX2 is an Open Source expansion” of the original game. Unsurprisingly, there was no source code to be found, anywhere. Not even a GitHub repo or anything.

This was discussed on a forum post, and people explained that the game used a framework licensed under the GPL. The OP had to explain to them that “A project doesn’t become Open Source just because they are using Open Source things”, which I absolutely agree with. Think of it this way: Microsoft uses BSD-licensed code in Windows, does that make Windows “open source”?

Sorry for the long post, had to get this out of my system.

Ephera
121M

Yeah, Vivaldi is another one where I’ve been misled to think that it’s open-source.
I don’t believe it was ever officially communicated as such, but people have been claiming that it was open-source, presumably because open-source==good and they were fanboying for it.

I’ve made it a habit when I find a new open-source project to check whether it even links a code repo and what license it has.

GadgeteerZA
41M

Yes I was really into Vivaldi for the vertical tabs and ditched them after I heard their pathetic reason for not being open source, yet building on top of open source.

Ephera
31M

You are aware that you can get vertical tabs in Firefox, too, right?

Tree-Style Tabs is the most popular extension for that: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/
Tab Center Reborn is also neat (no tree-structure, but thumbnails): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/tabcenter-reborn/

GadgeteerZA
31M

I had to abandoned Firefox due to a really horrific response issue (despite clearing caches etc) - I have about 20 tabs open per browser and it was slowing really badly obviously due to one or two of those tabs chewing up resources. But yes I certainly used its vertical tabs along with Vivaldi (until I discovered Vivaldi’s abuse of open source).

@Echedenyan
creator
71M

Vivaldi is propietary with the exception of old released whose source code is released as a permissive FLOSS license, but only old versions.

@AgreeableLandscape
mod
admin
8edit-21M

Bit of a sidenote, but Vivaldi is just another Chromium browser. If I had to use Chromium, I’d rather use the Ungoogled fork, even if it’s not perfect at removing everything Google because they’ve made themselves so damn pervasive in the codebase.

Ephera
41M

Ah ok, I think back then it was something weird, like most of the code being open-source (the Chromium portion), then the Vivaldi-specific code was source-available, except for the assets, but you could get a hold of those assets by extracting them from the official build.

Thinking about it, I guess some may have actually thought that open-source == source-available, but I also distinctly remember someone delivering the explanation above to argue that it’s technically open-source, because you could compile it yourself, if you really wanted to.

…which is not at all the definition of open-source, but yeah, you linked it above, I don’t need to go into that.

@Echedenyan
creator
41M

I have to fix something in which I was wrong, even older releases, they only free the changes made to the Chromium codebase but maintaining a part of their own code, for the interface, as review-only license. Source: https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-source/

The concept of review-only is something I have seen mostly promoted as open source when it is not.

Ephera
41M

Ah, thanks for posting that. I guess that horrible bullshit it’s-still-practically-open-source excuse actually came from their own website.

Yes, what they wrote there is technically correct and technically they did not claim that they were open-source. But they also wrote it in the most confusing, most misleading way possible. That whole response should’ve began with “No, it’s not open-source”.

It seems to be a trend.

@avalos
71M

macOS is at times promoted as open source because of Darwin/XNU. But macOS is not an operating system, but rather a platform including one.

@lnxprcy
91M

Hope someone can create a list of licenses or projects that don’t meet the definition.

@Lowey
4edit-21M

On that note, there’s now EPL(European)

Note: it’s more like AGPL or GPL, it meets the definition just wanted to tell it exists.

@AgreeableLandscape
mod
admin
1edit-21M

Isn’t that the EU one? If so, that’s sad.

@Lowey
11M

It meets the definition though

@Echedenyan
creator
31M

I think projects would be better since they can change licenses at any moment or use custom ones as this case.

Is that, and also that main licenses are already listed in GNU and Open Source websites.

@dengismceo
11M

agreed. especially since most end users don’t pay attention to things like license updates

@Lowey
11M

Isn’t qt in a contract that it needs to be open-source(KDE)

Ephera
21M

Yeah, under certain conditions, the “KDE Free Qt Foundation” can relicense Qt to be under a BSD license: https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/

@Lowey
11M

Wireguard and openVPN that’s it

@Echedenyan
creator
21M

Yes, the VPN to which I want to connect is made with OpenVPN and I know about the CLI client but I wanted to search something with GUI to make it a bit simpler as NetworkManager is not integrated with MATE.

@ajz
21M

Networkmanager not integrated with MATE ? What about Wicd ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicd Would that be an option ?

@Echedenyan
creator
2edit-21M

I use Wicd by default (sorry for forgotting to mention it) but I didn’t see a way to set VPNs there.

In the end I just finished using OpenVPN CLI client. I disabled the SysVInit service and start it manually when I want to have VPN connection.

NetworkManager, in their integrations with GNOME and KDE, has a plugin, for each one, to integrate set up VPNs using also part of OpenVPN main client as backend.

@Lowey
1edit-21M

In that case I only know of mullvad on Linux :)

Lowe

Adda
31M

I believe you meant Mullvad, right? As far as I know, Mullvad should be a really good open-source VPN.

@Echedenyan
creator
21M

Are you sure Mullvad is FLOSS? Claimings in https://mullvad.net/en/help/open-source/ don’t suggest it directly.

If you check their repositories seems that a lot of important part are FLOSS even what seems to be part of the server side and all the client side, but given that they don’t guarantee that and the amount of parts they have as repositories, I can think there is a not-showed part that could be non-FLOSS.

Adda
1edit-21M

I myself am not sure, to be honest, but a lot of people here seems to be using Mullvad and from what I have been able to find, everyone on Lemmy recommends it. I wasn’t inspecting their repositories closely, but it could be that some parts are not FLOSS. I don’t know though. According to the positive reviews, I tend to believe what Mullvad says and claims, and even though I agree the claim might be a bit indirect (unintentionally or purposely), it seems they are doing a great job. But I sadly cannot confirm nor refute your claim.

@Echedenyan
creator
31M

For that I already have Riseup VPN.

Adda
21M

I have never heard of Riseup VPN, but I will take a closer look in the future. Looks definitely interesting though I am somewhat concerned about the lack of information about Riseup VPN on the Internet so far. Seems to be recommended enough, but it will take me some time to be persuaded probably.

@Lowey
1edit-21M

Riseup is good enough to be honest. But I have seen mullvad that it’s in F-droid so pretty sure it’s FOSS. Also most security researcher I follow says it’s best not to use VPN, but if I do to use mullvad cause of the audits and clean history

@Echedenyan
creator
11M

Yes, it is. Their client is a fork of Bitmask specifically for their service.

Source code in https://0xacab.org/leap/bitmask-vpn

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

  • Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
  • No NSFW content
  • No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org

  • 0 users online
  • 12 users / day
  • 65 users / week
  • 159 users / month
  • 276 users / 6 months
  • 2371 subscribers
  • 688 Posts
  • 1654 Comments
  • Programming/Software
  • Modlog