No, no, it’s fine. A license like that would be detrimental to user’s freedoms; but asking whether that license exists, or asking any other question in general, is always fine.

That wouldn’t be a free software / open source license at all, as you’d be restricting users from freely using your software. There is a concept called “source available”, which might be what you mean; but that doesn’t belong to free software nor open source communities at all, and it’s just as evil as proprietary software.

Just take into account that Vivaldi is proprietary software. Their modified version of the Chromium engine is free software, but their UI and a couple more of components are proprietary.

Great. It provides an Ubuntu-based OS with a Sugar environment out of the box. I read somewhere they were also offering Windows, but it seems that’s not the case anymore. Great.

Samsung didn’t make it nor it was actually official. It was made by an independent animation studio called Lightfarm Studio, in collaboration with another one whose name I don’t remember. Lightfarm has made stuff for Samsung, but this wasn’t official. She’s sexy, though.

Me neither, I just wanted to express my opinion.

How about people who become aware of how privacy-abusing technology is, but decide not to switch to privacy-respecting platforms because not even the organization that enlightened them uses them? Wouldn’t it be better to give everyone opportunity to fight for their rights and stop using things that don’t respect them? The message they would transmit by hosting (or at least mirroring) their events on/to digital-rights-respecting platforms would be highly powerful.

The point is, rather than promoting privacy-respecting alternatives by mirroring their streams and live chats to them, or at least allowing people to interact with speakers from privacy-respecting platforms; they choose to make Twitch and YouTube Live their exclusive live streaming platforms. People who really care about privacy and have a lot to contribute to the conversation, are barred from participating.

They don’t use Mastodon either, if you want to publicly interact with them, you must create a Twitter account. They want to fix Big Tech rather than push Small Tech and decentralized Internet. They also participated in actively harming the Free Software movement by publicly attacking RMS and his followers, even when it had literally nothing to do with achieving their mission. Afaik, they don’t even care about free software, they only care about trying to make Big Tech accountable for their wrongdoings, which is very different.

I donated a lot of money to the EFF, which now I regret because they’re idiots to me.

The irony: commemorating 30th years of protecting digital rights by hosting a “Fireside Chat” on Twitch and YouTube Live: surveillance capitalist platforms that violate the rights and freedoms they supposedly fight for. Hypocrisy at its best! I won’t be attending any of their shitty events unless they switch to a digital-rights-respecting platform.

Moreover, the WMF is launching a for-profit company named Wikimedia, LLC. This will sell API services to big tech companies, making it easier for them to process Wikimedia content, which powers voice assistants like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa as well as Google’s infoboxes. These smart internet of things devices all draw on content from Wikipedia to create their aura of omniscience.

Seems like they’ll be closing their “open” knowledge ecosystem, so only Big Tech companies with enough money will be able to benefit from knowledge contributed by thousands (if not millions) of unpaid community editors. It sucks.

And this is only the beginning. Wikimedia, LLC. will probably find even more ways to monetize Wikipedia’s knowledge, and a lot of them will involve closing their database even more.

The Wikimedia, LLC project fills many of Wikipedia’s volunteer writers with unease. They see profits as a potentially corrupting influence. And there’s a perceived inequality in WMF staff being paid, while volunteers work for free. Wikipedia has been built with around 3 billion individual “edits.” The average edit currently brings the WMF around 4.3 cents in annual revenue, and now far greater profits to big tech. Wikipedians who have made hundreds of thousands of edits may well feel someone else is enjoying the fruit of their labor.

How? Does it contain non-free JavaScript or LibreJS fails to detect it as free? Or it is “non-trivial“?

UI still needs a bit more of work. I love the direction of the project, but right now looks a bit weird to me.

Huh? Shells is a cloud service, not a software, as far as I know. I need to read more about it.

I made the listing myself from scratch, it’s a static HTML page. The built-in Fossil one is not flexible enough; it doesn’t allow hiding repositories from the list, for instance.

GNU Social has pretty much always had groups.

I’m a big fan of Fossil. Since I started playing around with it (early 2020), I moved some projects to my self-hosted Fossil instance and it is now my default SCM. It offers a lot of features packed into a tiny binary. All repos are self-contained: they not only include code, but also everything that fills the web UI. I love Fossil.

https://fossil.avalos.me/

Because Gecko is a mess that is tightly integrated with other Firefox components. Chromium consists on several independent components (Blink, V8, …) packed into a browser, whereas Firefox is developed as a single huge program.

That’s why you don’t often see many Firefox-based projects. The popular ones are either patched Firefox (Librewolf), tweaked Firefox ESR (Tor, Waterfox, IceCat) or old Firefox forks that try to separate the components from the UI (Palemoon, Basilisk).

KDE Plasma might not be the prettiest desktop, but I think it’s good enough for most people. Most people work entirely in their browser and file manager nowadays, anyway.

Elaborate, please.

Gemini claims to “Takes user privacy very seriously” and yet it leaks the client and server IP addresses to each other and to network observers by not using any form of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mix_network.

A “mix network” would add a lot of complexity and is out-of-scope for Gemini. If you want a Mix network, build it on the transport layer, not the application layer. We’re on the Internet, IPs are required for everything.

It claims to “Strives for maximum power to weight ratio” and yet does not support caching.

For a reason, though. On the Web, caching is used to inject tracking pixels and persist them.

It does not support content-addressed sites in any form: to host a single-page static site the user has to pay for a VPS or buy some SBC, pay for a domain and configure DNS.

Because that’s also out-of-scope for Gemini. If you want fancy P2P content-addressed stuff, you build it on the network layer, not the application layer. You could still serve Gemini over IPFS in theory.

The “lightweight” aspect is the protocol itself, not the deployment effort.

Yes, because Gemini is a protocol, not a software you can deploy.

The protocol is “non-extensible by design” but obviously cannot prevent users from adding higher-level markups in some clients and start adding complexity, exactly what happened for the web.

It can’t prevent using higher-level markups, but the lack of caching and headers makes some stuff harder.