Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Following the example of GitLab and other VC-funded open source companies, @element goes 'open source almost everything' with "Synapse Pro";
"Synapse itself remains open source, and Element will continue to develop it proactively, just as it has for the last 10 years ... Available under a commercial license, Synapse Pro will help fund and accelerate the continued open source development of Synapse for the benefit of all of Matrix."
https://element.io/blog/synapse-pro-slashes-costs-for-running-nation-scale-matrix-deployments/
@strypey @element big sigh. Sad. Tom Preston-Werner's 'open source almost everything' https://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html is one of the most depressingly self-serving things I ever read. It assumes that only proprietary software has value. Which is flat out wrong. My career attests to that.
@lightweight @strypey @element sure also the MIT license says a lot. It doesn't protect against Open Washing and that's exactly what they did with GitHub.
https://os-sci.com/blog/our-blog-posts-1/why-is-open-washing-a-thing-14
@os_sci @strypey @element the only reason it's difficult to sustain some larger #libre projects (e.g. Copyleft) is because the market is stupid and continues to pay a mint to be monopolised by proprietary software vendors. Libre software would be quite sustainable *if the market rejected proprietary software*... or if regulators did. As a proxy for this, gov'ts could regulate to require open standards compliance for all software purchased by gov't. I wrote this about it: https://openstandards.nz
@lightweight @os_sci @strypey @element governments should go further and have a long term vision that require all their software to be free/libre to invest directly in development, customization, and support—not in marketing, business expansion, or dividends for investors
Plus this would retain the freedom to move to a different service provider if the current one no longer fits their needs.
And of course software obsolescence, sovereignty, security, education...
@lexoyo @lightweight @strypey @element Swiss did this. All code paid for with public money needs to be foss. Also the EU is trying. In the Netherlands each ministry has an OSPO. The main problem is the workforce, they want the proprietary shit. Have this problem at home too. Need to have WhatsApp because of my wife and daughter refusing to use Signal or Telegram
(1/2)
@os_sci
> Need to have WhatsApp because of my wife and daughter refusing to use Signal or Telegram
A shame their choice is WhatSapp, but good on them refusing fake solutions like TeleScam and Signal.
Any chat platform that isn't part of a multivendor, standards-based network is a proprietary chat platform. Even if all the code used in their deployment is published or linked, under libre licenses.
@strypey @lexoyo @lightweight @element How can anything which has a recognized foss license be proprietary?
(1/2)
@os_sci
> How can anything which has a recognized foss license be proprietary?
To access the Signal network you are obligated to use the server and apps binaries they offer. If you make use of Freedoms 2 and 3 to fork their app, or Freedom 1 to create your own, and you connect your app to their server, you're breaking their network license. So while the *code* is libre, the network is proprietary.
Does this make sense?
#Signal
(2/2)
It's like how all the core code of the Linux kernel is libre, but most of the versions distributed are proprietary, because to use them you are obliged to follow the license conditions of the binary blobs bundled with them.
Similarly, most GNU/Linux distros are proprietary, because while the majority of the code they're compiled from is libre, you can't run their without implicitly agreeing to the license terms of any proprietary binaries bundled with them.
This reinforces the confusion that Linux is more than a kernel.
Please write; "the kernel, Linux", "Linux, the kernel" or just "Linux" to mean Linux.
It is impossible to simultaneously comply with the requirements of the GPLv2-only and the bundled proprietary software, thus you are obliged to not distribute the proprietary version of Linux, otherwise you immediately and permanently lose your license.
Of course GNU Linux-libre can be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2-only.