Replying to
@emma@assemblag.es That’s an easy one. We needed something to make weird noises for cheesy sci-fi movies and surf rock groups. 🥸
This not an actual answer. 😆
@alcinnz@floss.social
Remote
jollyrogue
@jollyrogue@bsd.network
mastodon 3.5.19+iceage
Technologist who works in the macro aligned with FOSS, offline first, and anti-capitalism. Possibly human.
I post sporadically. Mostly bad takes on tech, but sometimes something useful.
0 Followers
0 Following
7 Posts
Joined January 03, 2018
Pronouns:
Name
Replying to
@cpkimber For sure. The fear is acknowledging a personal limit has been found, and pushing on that limit is where growth happens.
Imposter syndrome is staring into the inky darkness of the unknown.
@freyablekman @association @DPGPhysik
Replying to
@sonny@floss.social Indeed. Flatpak was not conceptualized as a security thing, but security has been retrofitted on to it for good effect.
@alcinnz@floss.social
Replying to
@ed1conf @xhr@mastodon.social 😟🤦🏽♂️All these years of restarting the command, and I can be toggled in session.😓
Replying to
@jplebreton@mastodon.social I would argue they were aware of the dynamics and were 100% pro-capitalism. The GPL, in particular, is very much a capitalist tool, and there isn’t much energy around fixing it.
Some of the old guard have made it very clear, open source is, and was, capitalist. Especially when the ideas of a communist public license or an anti-capitalist license come up.
@Mer__edith@mastodon.world @ck@chaos.social @dalias@hachyderm.io @signalapp@mastodon.world @be@floss.social
Replying to
@frox@tooting.ch Sure. It’s been a while, but these are some off the top of my head.
A long time ago, early ‘80s, RMS used to sell tapes of Emacs code, and this frames the outlook of the GPL license. He used to do fairly well with this from what I’ve read.
The GPL defines distribution as external distribution, and corps, like Google, have used this loophole to modify the code without having to distribute their changes. The APGL is better about this, but there are still ways around the license.
The GPL doesn’t specify the code released to the public has to be complete or buildable by the public. Parts can be left out, and the tooling to build the project doesn’t have to be public. VS Code is a good example of this. The code in the repo is not a complete project. It’s “open source”, but getting an exact copy of the binary as shipped by MS is not possible by building VS Code from the code repo. Granted the industry needs to do better about creating reproducible builds, and that muddies the waters a little bit.
Next, GPL allows for code which is available on request. I’ve personally seen a “open source” company use this to restrict access to their GPL code, and OpenBSD used to razz Linux distros about having a public CVS server. Plus the recent moves by RH, in regards to RHEL sources, is exactly how the GPL is supposed to be used.
The FUD around the GPL makes it sound scarier than what it is. It’s really pretty mild, and it’s more copyright of center than copyleft.
@jplebreton@mastodon.social @Mer__edith@mastodon.world @ck@chaos.social @dalias@hachyderm.io @signalapp@mastodon.world @be@floss.social
Replying to
@mono@wetdry.world I keep thinking of my blender when I look at that thing. Like I’m about to purée something, but I know how much of a mess it’s going to be afterwards, which is causing me to reevaluate my choices.
@dch@bsd.network