FOSStard or GNUTard, not to be confused with a FOSSoid, is an insufferable person whose most prominent identity is Free Software advocacy (#FOSS advocacy) done the wrong way. These people can be identified online by the GNUJihad flag, or by the language they use when writing their long posts about how Free Software is better than proprietary software in every way. Usually by writing "Total proprietary death" or it's acronym "TPD" somewhere in the post.
Instead of advocating for practical Free Software use, they support only 100% Free Software solutions while ignoring how broken and unusable they can be. Thus eliminating any potential new users of Free Software they could have convinced otherwise.
Differences between a FOSSTard and FOSSoid
FOSSoids are usually harmless and support Free Software only in places where it makes sense and try to develop solutions in places where Free Software doesn't work. They are non-argumentative and don't engage in long threads about Free Software. And if they do, they laugh at the stupidity of it.
Differences between a FOSSTard and FLOSSTard
FLOSSTards are a less harmful version of FOSSTards, who felt the urge to add the L in #FOSS, thus creating #FLOSS (Free and Libre Open-Source Software) and support the now popular dance from the game Fortnite. While also ignoring that free and libre means the same thing.
Am I a FOSSTard?
Do you call Linux distros GNU/Linux distros? - Yes
Do you interject in random threads about software and talk about Free Software? - Yes
Do you have the GNUJihad flag in your biography on the Fediverse? - Probably yes
@subtype@phnt@Hyolobrika it stops google from turning it into a cloud service but no it isn't enough, I can take any AGPL project, rebrand it, SEO the shit out of it, and sell copies to people and if they just click accept the license and continue they won't ever see it's AGPL and that they have a right to ask me for source code and do whatever they want with it
The AGPLv3 does absolutely nothing to stop google from using such software - google is free to implement whatever SaaSS they want with AGPLv3'd software.
The reason google bans software under such license is because they commonly download free software, modify such to add malicious spying features and then run that on their servers.
Clearly they don't want to provide the source code to users and have their criminal acts clearly revealed and allow the users to remove the malicious features and share the fixed version.
>if they just click accept the license and continue they won't ever see it's AGPL
The written offer under section b) is only an option of you distribute the software on a physical distribution medium.
If you do commercial online distribution, the only options are d) or e) and either of those requires making the source code just as visible as the object code - meaning many users will realize that the software is free and they can get the source.
Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
>The AGPLv3 does absolutely nothing to stop google from using such software - google is free to implement whatever SaaSS they want with AGPLv3'd software.
Yes, I meant that part as in "it stops them in practice", because Google have a policy against AGPL
>The written offer under section b) is only an option of you distribute the software on a physical distribution medium. ...
Alright, rusty memory on that part, I must admit.
>If you do commercial online distribution, the only options are d) or e) and either of those requires making the source code just as visible as the object code - meaning many users will realize that the software is free and they can get the source.
And GDPR requires that reject non-essential button is as easily accessible as accept all button and yet it's almost always more clicks. One could definitely get away by just hiding the source behind a "see all versions" button in download page. Ship it as tar.xz and the only people who won't be scared by that would also at least skim the license enough to see it says "AGPL" (this is a minority!)
In any case this is arguing about minutiae in my random story I made up :D. The main point, to which I think you'll agree, is that AGPL isn't much more effective at preventing commercial (ab)use by third parties than, say, GPL. Actually now that I look at the history of the thread, it was about commercial forks not just plain rip-offs. Soo. If Linux kernel was AGPL, Valve could&would still sell SteamDecks with it (I believe Linux makes it more profitable for them as Windows would come with OEM licensing fees + they'd likely have to work on the drivers anyways.). While it's not a traditional "fork", a non-commercial license would still cover it.
@Ukko@Suiseiseki
>If Linux kernel was AGPL, Valve could&would still sell SteamDecks with it (I believe Linux makes it more profitable for them as Windows would come with OEM licensing fees + they'd likely have to work on the drivers anyways.).
I'll add one thing to this. The main reason why Valve started being interested in Linux in the first place, is when Microsoft made it clear that they would like to dominate the PC games market with their own platform (unification of the XBox and Win10 kernel, Microsoft store as the only place to buy Microsoft games,...) and that of course would cut into their profits. Buy developing Proton and Linux features like ESync/FSync, they have an option of using software for Windows/XBox, that is free of Microsoft's hands.
And I think they predicted that right when you look how much studios MS is buying now.
@meso@phnt
Don't start. You use proprietary software all the time anyway. You were asking everyone to join you in red dead redemption online recently. 😩
@meso@dushman It's true though. Did you ever try to contribute to GNU/FSF projects? It's like contributing to GNOME, but somehow even worse. The drive Free software had in the 90's is gone.
@phnt@dushman@mischievoustomato do you think these are good things? they are not, they are reasons not to use Linux. Pulseaudio is the biggest piece of shit audio system on any OS, even Windows does it slightly better, which is why I don't use it. I try my best to avoid GTK apps, and I hate using them because some retarded shit programmer was the only one who implemented the idea and no one wants to make a better implementation that doesn't use the worst GUI toolkit in existence. FreeDesktop is a shitty bureaucracy, I use some drivers by them but it doesn't really matter, those drivers aren't "RedHat"
@dushman@mischievoustomato I'll tell you a little secret, you can even theme libadwaita apps without any environment variables. Symlink is all you need.
@dushman@meso@mischievoustomato Btw the recoloring API they promised after the theming backlash never happened. The conversation stopped about it, when the drama died.
@dushman@meso@mischievoustomato It would be a good idea, if done properly. I can understand the need for a platform library, but they did it in the worse way possible, as is usual with backend GNOME devs. KF5 is for example a platform library/libraries done the correct way.
@mischievoustomato@dushman@meso It isn't portable, it enforces things it shouldn't like window decorations, because there are some situations you don't want them even in GNOME and some other things.
@mischievoustomato@dushman@meso It's biggest problem is the dependency on GTK, or GObject to be precise. GObject is the biggest piece of shit library you can imagine, that likes to call abort() when it encounters the slightest problem, instead of fixing it.
@meso@phnt@mischievoustomato
Dino is the worst chat client I've used in my life. Vala is a fucking joke of a language, this shit will memleak and eat 5gb of ram for no reason. Gajim works issue free for me 99% of the time.
from random import randint
list_of_bad_words = [ ... ]
used = []
words = []
s = ", "
for x in range(3):
while True:
rand = randint(0, len(list_of_bad_words) - 1)
if rand not in used:
break
used.append(rand)
words.append(list_of_bad_words[rand])
print(s.join(words))
@meso@dushman@mischievoustomato Then your other option is EFL, which has almost no support in Linux, or Tk with Tcl. Good luck. Qt actually sensible when it comes to writing apps and designing UI.
@mischievoustomato@dushman@meso I disagree, GCC, coreutils, emacs and Hurd are the most complex pieces of software GNU ever written and they were written before Free software was even starting to be a thing (in the time when people with mainframes and mini-computers got fed up with the incompatibilities with different versions in different Unix OSes.
What killed FSF/GNU is unironically Stallman's view of how software should be written and his attitude with patches. Many people in these projects still have the same mindset and because of that not that many people contribute.
FOSS isn't really dead, but it's being slowly replaced by companies with open-core models. Still hate NGINX for that even though I use it. The metrics API they expose to non-paying customers isn't really great.
i guess the difference is that the gnu shit was already established and i believe they get money.
> foss isnt really dead
its not, but i wonder if its growing or stagnated.
> replaced by open core models
if something is made by a company or group of people expect that, people wanna have their cake and eat it too, foss licenses are too restrictive in that regard. i use bsd3, and I'm happy cuz it does what i want
Did you know that if you own the copyright you are not forced to follow the license requirements? You can have GPLed code and still sell proprietary versions of it (see: Qt), or incorporate it inside of non-GPL projects. Of course if you rely on the community to write the code for you, you can't do it unless you make them assign you their copyright or write in a cuck license for you
Add comment