Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BR
Posts
24
Comments
138
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I don't think it is so much claiming that open source doesn't value time, but the opposite: (switching to) open source isn't free, because it has a time cost that needs to be discussed. Technically the arguments holds for switching between any software, open or otherwise, but when your pitching to someone who already is using proprietary software that works well enough, the cost of staying can be much lower.

  • "Open source is free if you don't value your time." (forgot who that quote is from)

    Sometimes the time investment is small, but especially for complex software, the friction of switching from one imperfect (proprietary) software to another imperfect (open) software makes it not really make much sense unless the issue is severe (house is half destroyed).

  • Obligatorily: I am not a lawyer, and license law is complicated.

    MPL wouldn't be the best choice, since it is per-file. GPL is copyleft and viral, meaning that if you make a modification and distribute the software, you must provide your modified source code under the GPL. AGPL is stricter in terms of when source code must be released; primarily it targets server software where the user interacts with the software, but does not actually download the software itself. The GPL wouldn't require releasing source code, but the AGPL would.

    As skullgiver mentioned, if you want to relicense, it would be best to use a CLA. The key to preventing yourself from being able to relicense your project (to a proprietary license or otherwise) is to ensure that other people are licensing their contributions to you under the GPL, without a CLA giving you exceptions, so that you yourself must follow their licensing terms. The Linux kernel for example is locked into the GPLv2, because they used a version of the GPL that does not provide for "upgrading" to newer versions of the GPL, and there are too many people who have contributed to the code to get all together to agree on a relicensing.

  • Not that it isn't a lot, but the 3.2 trillion figure is a total, not an average; that gives an average of only 8 billion per person. Going off Wealth Shown to Scale, Bezos' wealth could be equally spread among at least 23 people, and they'd all still be in the top 400.

  • VMs have their own drawbacks. There are some projects to integrate a Windows VM with Linux (WinApps), but it won't quite integrate fully. Graphical performance is bad without a GPU to pass through (Intel GVT-g kind of works, but is a massive pain to get working).

  • As someone who hopped over to the Linux side of the fence... same. Dual-booting somewhat eased the transition though, since I could do it more gradually and fall back to Windows whenever I needed it. Now that I primarily use Linux, I love how swapping to a new computer is 99% done by just copying homefolders. Even apps copy over, using user installed Flatpaks.

  • In the EEA, much more is on the way:

    Bing's web search from the Start menu and the Edge browser can be uninstalled Third parties can add to the Windows Widgets Board feeds Third parties, like Google or DuckDuckGo, can provide the built-in web search results that Bing once had exclusively Windows users who choose to sync their Microsoft accounts will have their pinned apps and preferences synced, seemingly keeping their EEA-enabled choices Windows will now "always use customers' configured app default settings for link and file types"

    Good to see Microsoft just blatantly confirming that these are anti-competitive measures rather than any sort of technical limitation.