Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I wouldn't say they are that different.

open source

free software

I think free software is more open to commercial development of software than people give them credit. After all, they did write the GPLv2 that Linus uses. And they do make sure to make it clear, they have no problem with people charging for software. As long as it remains modifiable to the people that use the software.

They are definitely different. But I've seen some people act as if it's night, and day. I'm not saying you are saying that. But I have seen people do that. I actually think even Richard Stallman is more practical than people tend to give him credit for being (in some cases at least), he doesn't seem to be under the illusion that everyone is going to adopt his view, and that companies aren't going to resist changing to adopting the principles of free software out of nowhere. When I've watched his talks at least. But he definitely wants to push them to change. For instance his views on cell phones. Overall I think they are correct, and he gets proven more correct over time. But I just see him recommending people not use them, and saying he will never use a cell phone. Rather than expecting everyone to not use them, or forcing people to not use them (though he does tell them not to bring them in his house IIRC, which imo is actually based google hate).

Getting off topic about free software, vs open source. But I think his stance on cell phones is great, not even from a free software, and privacy perspective. But mental health. I still have a cell phone obviously, because basically everyone does. But I know for a fact I would be better off mentally if I didn't, and I think everyone deep down knows that they would be too. Its just genuinely hard to do. I actually didn't have one for like a year, like 8 or 9 years ago. Thinking back it was nice. I was definitely less isolated, but it obviously has its own drawbacks.
 
Last edited:
Lard Shart said:
In practice there exists only public and private code. Don't want evil entities to use it? Then don't publish it on the Internet.
Click to expand...
Now this has me thinking, what's the likelihood that any closed source software has been reverse engineered by some company in the past, but they choose to keep their findings private for personal use. 🤔
 
Tremolo said:
Now this has me thinking, what's the likelihood that any closed source software has been reverse engineered by some company in the past, but they choose to keep their findings private for personal use. 🤔
Click to expand...
The likelihood is low. Unless some software uses novel techniques, it's not worth it to reverse-engineer. It's all about effort; using an open source library is near zero effort, decompiling a competitor's program is often more effort than rewriting from scratch. And now with SaaS having become industry-standard, access to program binaries is largely a thing of the past, rendering reverse-engineering impossible.
 
Betonhaus said:
So say theoretically I was writing a piece of open source code where I would be fine if people used it in their own proprietary software as long as they contribute bug fixes and new features to my original code, which license should I use?
Click to expand...
There generally doesn't exist a free software license which forces downstream users to contribute changes back upstream, upstream might not want some of the changes after all; so you'll need a license which forces downstream to publish all changes done to your library.
The LGPL would be your best choice here, however it also imposes that users of the downatream software are able to make changes to your library and have them reflected in that software. This typically either requires the software to be distributed as object files (nowadays rather uncommon) that the user can re-link it himself or your library being shipped as a seperate shared library loaded by the software.
 
Tremolo said:
Now this has me thinking, what's the likelihood that any closed source software has been reverse engineered by some company in the past, but they choose to keep their findings private for personal use. 🤔
Click to expand...
i see it happening in a few cases where a company has some insane legacy jeetware that can't or won't be supported by the original authors so they have to somehow fix it themselves in order to use it
publishing the results would obviously be a legal minefield, but just using it in-house might be worth the slight risk
Lady Ivlia de Nîmes said:
- snip -
Click to expand...
there is another option: dual licensing
you can offer the software under (l)gpl and also offer it under some commercial license that allows using it in proprietary software (sending back improvements might be one of the terms of such an agreement)
a famous example of a library that does this is qt
 
Creative Username said:
there is another option: dual licensing
you can offer the software under (l)gpl and also offer it under some commercial license that allows using it in proprietary software (sending back improvements might be one of the terms of such an agreement)
a famous example of a library that does this is qt
Click to expand...
So say one could have their code be gplv3 but be able to sell it under a license where they don't have to reveal their changes but they have some restrictions on letting others use the code?
 
Unintelligence Score said:
AFAIK if you have authored the entire codebase (or if everyone who participated in it agrees) you can swap licenses / or multi-license at will.

They did it with Qt.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to do that on a project hosted on GitHub? Like if I had in the license that contributions would be placed under both licenses? It sounds like that wouldn't legally work or would be very delicate if possible
 
Creative Username said:
i see it happening in a few cases where a company has some insane legacy jeetware that can't or won't be supported by the original authors so they have to somehow fix it themselves in order to use it
Click to expand...
I had something similiar happen to me at work. A company our company works with is providing us with some data, however their system is made by indians (this was stated to me as the reason for this) so they are unable to get some data from their own system to send to us - so I was tasked (by them) with scraping their own website to get that data. Terry really was onto something with his theory of where computers went wrong.
Betonhaus said:
Like if I had in the license that contributions would be placed under both licenses?
Click to expand...
From my understanding. If you have such contributing conditions, then yes. If people agree to this from the beginning (or surrender any ownership of patches at the moment they send them, or any other way to do this), then you can do whatever you want. BUT you cannot relicense someone elses contribution retroactively without their approval. There have been many times in the past where maintainers of a project needed to reach out to past contributors to get permission to relicense their contributions, sometimes having to rewrite them due to not being able to reach an agreement or whatnot.
 
This thread is a complete waste of time.

This thread is supposed to be about laughing at mentally ill people in the open source world. There is an entire Internet & Technology subforum to sperg about normie tech bullshit like "what's your favorite programming language", "what's the best lunix", "guys did you know there are other CPUs besides x86".
 
Libreboot has added the Topton X2E N150/BKHD H30W-N150 to their roster. These are small chinesium boards meant to be used as network appliances. One thing that kind of itches me is that they don't really damage the ME in any meaningful way on these boards, just flip ye olde HAP bit to set it to the """"totally disabled state for real for real"""". Not my favorite thing, but it is good to see that development is speeding up, especially after Francis' two month long graphomanic crashout this summer:

1759669005442.png


He's got the entire thing posted here: https://libreboob.org/ Is it deranged tranny rambling? Yes. Is it bizarre and autistic? Also yes. But... somehow I don't hate it. It has sovl, in its own deranged tranny way.

Edit: Some more funnies so I don't double post, I found this on an OpenBSD discussion board: https://rl.bloat.cat/r/openbsd/comments/1nvwrxj/interview_with_russian_openbsd_user_while_walking/ - about some guy interviewing a random Russian OpenBSD user, and the wall of [Deleted] in the comments cracked me up. I cannot believe there are still people this upset about [OLD THING] after {CURRENT THING] became more relevant. Fucking retard outrage addicted no brain nigger monkeys never fail to make me laugh.
 
Last edited:
emuemuemuemu said:
This thread is a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
Thank you for improving the signal-to-noise ratio and for the always-helpful backseat-moderating.

Ferryman said:
Is it deranged tranny rambling? Yes. Is it bizarre and autistic? Also yes. But... somehow I don't hate it. It has sovl, in its own deranged tranny way.
Click to expand...
Rowe is like Tunney: they both are mentally unwell LARPers, but they do some decent work outside of that, and they don't seem to suck the Leftist-religion cock like most of the troon brigade.
 
Ferryman said:
Libreboot has added the Topton X2E N150/BKHD H30W-N150 to their roster. These are small chinesium boards meant to be used as network appliances. One thing that kind of itches me is that they don't really damage the ME in any meaningful way on these boards, just flip ye olde HAP bit to set it to the """"totally disabled state for real for real"""". Not my favorite thing, but it is good to see that development is speeding up, especially after Francis' two month long graphomanic crashout this summer:

View attachment 8000618

He's got the entire thing posted here: https://libreboob.org/; Is it deranged tranny rambling? Yes. Is it bizarre and autistic? Also yes. But... somehow I don't hate it. It has sovl, in its own deranged tranny way.

Edit: Some more funnies so I don't double post, I found this on an OpenBSD discussion board: https://rl.bloat.cat/r/openbsd/comments/1nvwrxj/interview_with_russian_openbsd_user_while_walking/ - about some guy interviewing a random Russian OpenBSD user, and the wall of [Deleted] in the comments cracked me up. I cannot believe there are still people this upset about [OLD THING] after {CURRENT THING] became more relevant. Fucking retard outrage addicted no brain nigger monkeys never fail to make me laugh.
Click to expand...
We already have enough schizo ramblings at home.
 
Ferryman said:
One thing that kind of itches me is that they don't really damage the ME in any meaningful way on these boards, just flip ye olde HAP bit to set it to the """"totally disabled state for real for real"""". Not my favorite thing
Click to expand...
i think it's better to have "libreboot with me still enabled" than "pajeetium mystery meat firmware with me still enabled" tbh
analrapist said:
they both are mentally unwell LARPers, but they do some decent work outside of that, and they don't seem to suck the Leftist-religion cock like most of the troon brigade.
Click to expand...
if there's one consistent thing about troons, it's that they're quite unpredictable
sometimes they're so fucking crazy they actually contribute positively to society
 
emuemuemuemu said:
This thread is a complete waste of time.

This thread is supposed to be about laughing at mentally ill people in the open source world. There is an entire Internet & Technology subforum to sperg about normie tech bullshit like "what's your favorite programming language", "what's the best lunix", "guys did you know there are other CPUs besides x86".
Click to expand...
Shut the fuck up pink reg date user. Lurk more until your reg date is no longer pink, then maybe you can start posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom