CaptObvious @ CaptObvious @literature.cafe

Posts

3

Comments

800

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you don’t like people accepting what you freely offer, then don’t offer it. If you want to be paid, sell your work. It’s extraordinarily simple.

Obviously. With this much “I/me/my” in their rhetoric, it’s clear that they’re thinking about everyone else.

i dont want you to make money off of my invention without giving back

Why do you think that you're interested in writing FOSS software? Nothing you've posted here supports that claim. You do, however, speak like a textbook entrepreneur who wants to be paid for their innovation.

If you want to sell proprietary software, why not just write and sell it? Or as others have suggested, dual license it? Hell, even the old shareware model could work for what you’ve described.

Unless you’re paying enforcers, how would you know if a corporation paid the right amount to use the code? How would your union determine distribution amounts to projects? How far upstream would payments go? How will disputes among developers be resolved?

Thanks for posting this. Zoom creeps me out. They try to force-download their POS app, they seem to have begun degrading service for browser-based users, their app won’t behave properly. I’m also in the market for alternatives.

Isn’t Brave problematic in its own right?

Isn’t Brave problematic in its own right?

I never use Pocket and have it hidden. I forget that it’s still there most of the time.

Friend, all I can tell you is my experience. I’m glad yours was different.

Not that I’m aware of.

And LibreOffice

No, commercial exploitation is assumed ownership. It isn’t use. Open source is not CC0 — or at least that’s not the only possible open source license.

BTW, I agree that, in this case, the dev is just throwing a tantrum over using the wrong license for his earlier work.

It doesn’t appear to be.

Yea, I know. The license doesn’t restrict use. Anyone can use the software for any purpose. They just can’t sell it.

There are days when I understand antipathy towards the UN. Fortunately they’re rare. But boneheaded moved like this don’t make it easy to defend the institution.

That’s one of many definitions.

But it is open for any use.

Proton fell into the black hole when they pitched to replace Gmail on Huawei phones. Being eager to do business with the CCP was a dealbreaker.

That said, I have a Tuta account. I don't use it for everything, but I have no complaints.

Honest question: How is CC-BY-NC not open source?

And in fairness, isn't his project itself a fork? What is he paying to the upstream dev for use of their source code?

You don’t understand why an ad company owning a “privacy focused” browser is a problem?