GitHub. The world's biggest host for open source projects is 100% proprietary.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2021
29 points (100.0% liked)
Open Source
32782 readers
573 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, but it's fine, because
Microsoft ❤️ [making money off of] Open-Source.
Yeah. I only have account for making reports and to avoid making microshit account for my sysadmin course as teachers use tools from microshit imagine.
Not promoted as open source, but this shit from discord annoys the fuck out of me.
"[company name] <3 open source" is actually a warning sing
Cute!
Yeah, Vivaldi is another one where I've been misled to think that it's open-source.
I don't believe it was ever officially communicated as such, but people have been claiming that it was open-source, presumably because open-source==good and they were fanboying for it.
I've made it a habit when I find a new open-source project to check whether it even links a code repo and what license it has.
Vivaldi is propietary with the exception of old released whose source code is released as a permissive FLOSS license, but only old versions.
Bit of a sidenote, but Vivaldi is just another Chromium browser. If I had to use Chromium, I'd rather use the Ungoogled fork, even if it's not perfect at removing everything Google because they've made themselves so damn pervasive in the codebase.
Ah ok, I think back then it was something weird, like most of the code being open-source (the Chromium portion), then the Vivaldi-specific code was source-available, except for the assets, but you could get a hold of those assets by extracting them from the official build.
Thinking about it, I guess some may have actually thought that open-source == source-available, but I also distinctly remember someone delivering the explanation above to argue that it's technically open-source, because you could compile it yourself, if you really wanted to.
...which is not at all the definition of open-source, but yeah, you linked it above, I don't need to go into that.
I have to fix something in which I was wrong, even older releases, they only free the changes made to the Chromium codebase but maintaining a part of their own code, for the interface, as review-only license. Source: https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-source/
The concept of review-only is something I have seen mostly promoted as open source when it is not.
Ah, thanks for posting that. I guess that horrible bullshit it's-still-practically-open-source excuse actually came from their own website.
Yes, what they wrote there is technically correct and technically they did not claim that they were open-source. But they also wrote it in the most confusing, most misleading way possible. That whole response should've began with "No, it's not open-source".
Yes I was really into Vivaldi for the vertical tabs and ditched them after I heard their pathetic reason for not being open source, yet building on top of open source.
You are aware that you can get vertical tabs in Firefox, too, right?
Tree-Style Tabs is the most popular extension for that: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/
Tab Center Reborn is also neat (no tree-structure, but thumbnails): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/tabcenter-reborn/
I had to abandoned Firefox due to a really horrific response issue (despite clearing caches etc) - I have about 20 tabs open per browser and it was slowing really badly obviously due to one or two of those tabs chewing up resources. But yes I certainly used its vertical tabs along with Vivaldi (until I discovered Vivaldi's abuse of open source).
Hope someone can create a list of licenses or projects that don't meet the definition.
On that note, there's now EPL(European)
Note: it's more like AGPL or GPL, it meets the definition just wanted to tell it exists.
Isn't that the EU one? If so, that's sad.
It meets the definition though
I think projects would be better since they can change licenses at any moment or use custom ones as this case.
Is that, and also that main licenses are already listed in GNU and Open Source websites.
agreed. especially since most end users don't pay attention to things like license updates
Another reason why "open" is weaker than "free". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
Qt is getting there
This also happened a few days ago: https://anonymoushash.vmbrasseur.com/2021/01/14/elasticsearch-and-kibana-are-now-business-risks
Isn't qt in a contract that it needs to be open-source(KDE)
Yeah, under certain conditions, the "KDE Free Qt Foundation" can relicense Qt to be under a BSD license: https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/
Wireguard and openVPN that's it
Yes, the VPN to which I want to connect is made with OpenVPN and I know about the CLI client but I wanted to search something with GUI to make it a bit simpler as NetworkManager is not integrated with MATE.
Networkmanager not integrated with MATE ? What about Wicd ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicd Would that be an option ?
I use Wicd by default (sorry for forgotting to mention it) but I didn't see a way to set VPNs there.
In the end I just finished using OpenVPN CLI client. I disabled the SysVInit service and start it manually when I want to have VPN connection.
NetworkManager, in their integrations with GNOME and KDE, has a plugin, for each one, to integrate set up VPNs using also part of OpenVPN main client as backend.
In that case I only know of mullvad on Linux :)
Lowe
I believe you meant Mullvad, right? As far as I know, Mullvad should be a really good open-source VPN.
Are you sure Mullvad is FLOSS? Claimings in https://mullvad.net/en/help/open-source/ don't suggest it directly.
If you check their repositories seems that a lot of important part are FLOSS even what seems to be part of the server side and all the client side, but given that they don't guarantee that and the amount of parts they have as repositories, I can think there is a not-showed part that could be non-FLOSS.
I myself am not sure, to be honest, but a lot of people here seems to be using Mullvad and from what I have been able to find, everyone on Lemmy recommends it. I wasn't inspecting their repositories closely, but it could be that some parts are not FLOSS. I don't know though. According to the positive reviews, I tend to believe what Mullvad says and claims, and even though I agree the claim might be a bit indirect (unintentionally or purposely), it seems they are doing a great job. But I sadly cannot confirm nor refute your claim.
For that I already have Riseup VPN.
I have never heard of Riseup VPN, but I will take a closer look in the future. Looks definitely interesting though I am somewhat concerned about the lack of information about Riseup VPN on the Internet so far. Seems to be recommended enough, but it will take me some time to be persuaded probably.
Riseup is good enough to be honest. But I have seen mullvad that it's in F-droid so pretty sure it's FOSS. Also most security researcher I follow says it's best not to use VPN, but if I do to use mullvad cause of the audits and clean history
Yes, it is. Their client is a fork of Bitmask specifically for their service.
Source code in https://0xacab.org/leap/bitmask-vpn
Since I'm already here, I have another example.
So there's this Mario fangame called Super Mario Bros. X (which was proprietary to begin with), it was abandoned by its developer long ago but the community's still active. Some fans modded the original game and called it "SMBX2". Their homepage stated that "SMBX2 is an Open Source expansion" of the original game. Unsurprisingly, there was no source code to be found, anywhere. Not even a GitHub repo or anything.
This was discussed on a forum post, and people explained that the game used a framework licensed under the GPL. The OP had to explain to them that "A project doesn't become Open Source just because they are using Open Source things", which I absolutely agree with. Think of it this way: Microsoft uses BSD-licensed code in Windows, does that make Windows "open source"?
Sorry for the long post, had to get this out of my system.