That is a very strange way of looking at things. Should people not get upset at their desires being interfered with based upon some arrogant busybody's concept of the ideal? For the crime of being liked by too many people?
Frankly declaring a civilization dead over not doing what you want sounds very much like an egocentric "elite tantrum". Like all of the arrogants who think that they can know the best interests of others better than them in spite of the fact that every time that has tried it just amounts to an unaccountable autocracy. After all the nobility were supposed to 'know better' for the peasantry and represent them.
I think that's quite an unfair misrepresentation of what happened in Nepal which had many confounding factors and was years in the making. The narrative that it was "just gen z wanting their apps" only serves the purposes of the old regime.
Yes, time for a reset. A reset of all the influence foreign companies have on my country! It is many the times I have daydreamed of seizing their assets and pushing them out... Goodbye Apple, goodbye Google!
There are more than two mobile OS's, we just have to be allowed to run our choice of them on our choice of device, and the hardware vendors should be forced to not ship with a default OS.
It's crazy talk. Who's got the time to standardize messaging and data for WWAN modems on mobile devices? It's not like any operating systems ever implemented userland emulation of Android or iOS APIs and delivered a roughly identical experience to customers. Way too unrealistic, we're talking about space age technology here.
We should be happy that Google and Apple don't charge us more for all their hard work. If they leave there are no other phone manufacturers in the world, Europe would simply return to the dark ages.
alternatives exist. they are not successful because lack of scale makes them not profitable enough to sustain development. if google and apple went away, they would be able to reach the scale needed to make a profit an become successful.
‘Free software’ and ‘open source software’ (as respectively defined by the FSF [1] and the OSI [2], which is how they’re usually used in practice) have overlapping definitions. The project in question is released into the public domain via the Unlicense, which qualifies as a free software ‘licence’. Many of the other projects use the MIT/Expat licence, which also qualifies as a free software licence.
The caveat with the Unlicense is that it doesn't work in some jurisdictions, and the work may be considered literally unlicensed, as in nobody except the copyright owner can use it. In practical terms, of course, I doubt anyone using the Unlicense plans to come after you for copyright infringement, but it's something to keep in mind. This is why many organizations recommend instead using something like CC0, MIT etc.
I recall hearing that SQLite actually had some significant issues with choosing public domain as their license and somewhat regret the decision. Apparently it’s not a concept which has broad understating internationally, and there’s less legal precedent in a software context which has made it harder for some teams to adopt due to concerns from legal departments.
The Unlicense isn't "just" public domain though, it also has a fallback
clause that explicitly lists things you are allowed to do ("copy, modify,
publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute"). So I think the intent is,
even if PD isn't recognized and line 1 is invalid, you're still granting
a license to the same effect.
SQLite on the other hand just says
The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal
notice, here is a blessing:
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
which seems less useful once you strike sentence 1.
What is the stance of Your Average Corp’s security department on public domain software? Do they accept software under such licensing (or lack thereof)?
Who cares? Seriously. Whether a commercial entity who wants to be able to benefit from your work accepts the license you choose for work you do is as much a concern as whether or not the prime minister of Liechtenstein accepts the color you paint the outside of your house in the USA. That is: none.
Bad analogy.. if they truly care what colour your house is then there's plenty of strings they could pull. I mean, a good number of large U.S. company's tax and corporate structures depend heavily on Liechtenstein's government’s rules..
Kinda depends on whether you're publishing open source software so that people can use it. And if you're not publishing open source software so that people can use it, why exactly are you doing it? If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go. If you do want people to use it, MIT or BSD is a much better way to go.
As a counterexample: I would rather use GPL or AGPL licensed code on my machine, than merely MIT licensed code, because I see the philosophical difference behind it, due to copyleft. Someone who makes some code available under (A)GPL wants it to stay available under a free software license. Someone who releases under MIT is either uninformed, or has different motivation , that does not fully align with keeping things libre for people. It is less safe against being made proprietary in the future. Anyone can come and make a new version that is proprietary and has that one more feature, luring people into using the proprietary version instead of the open source one.
So I have much more trust in (A)GPL licensed projects, and I see them as more for the people than MIT licensed projects.
GPL is for when you want people to use it. MIT is for when you want megacorporations to turn it into enshittified proprietary software and profit off of it without giving back to you.
I think you are mistaken; neither is a subset of the other. At the very least, there are licences which are recognised as open source by the OSI, but not as free by the FSF, and vice versa [1]. I think it’s more appropriate to say they are two fundamentally separate definitions with a massive overlap.
You have recited a successful incantation to summon the Stallman acolytes.
To add an additional suggestion, gratis can also be used to refer to free as in free beer. Comes from a latin root and is common in spanish speaking countries to refer only to free of charge, and not as in freedom.
> Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it.
That’s called freeware. Also, open-source software can be paid (with the caveat that if someone buys it, you must allow them to redistribute it for free).
Aside from the posted library sj.h which is in public domain (compatible with the definition of "free software"), the author's other projects mostly use the MIT license.
The MIT license upholds the four essential freedoms of free software: the right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
It is listed under "Expat License" in the list of GPL-compatible Free Software licenses.
"Source Available" and "Open Source" (with an OSI-approved license) are the terms you're looking for. "Free as in speech, or free as in beer?" is your rallying cry.
From what? It's pretty difficult to enshittify something that has an MIT license; whereas there seem to be practically infinite ways to enshittify GPL software.
I'd argue that's only true if you ignore loneliness in areas outside of cities. I would have a hard time living somewhere that I didn't run into people.
A materialist culture inevitably leads to this. It is the logical conclusion of a society that atomized the wholeness of life without realizing that the sum of its parts is less than the whole.
But it is the reality the collective chose. I fully expect things to get worse before they get better.
It is where the slippery slope leads but a lot of materialist cultures manage to find a midpoint and stick there.
In a sense this isn't even materialist: you are chasing numbers in an account for their own sake. A materialist wants things, and might sacrifice everything else to get them, but doesn't want to do the work for its own sake.
Ultimately this is feeding the ego, the least material thing of all. And I can't actually fault people for that; in the end what else do we have? But even an egotist needs to be able to ask themselves, "am I in fact feeling what I want to feel, or have I missed myself?"
There are certainly those who want the ego rush of feeling like they've worked as hard as they possibly can and taken every chance to show off their skill. But we've fetishized them, and even if they are happy, it often won't achieve the same for us.
It really is materialist, as numbers in an account is a direct representation for the number of coins you have, which are spent fueling a life full of hedonistic pleasures and vices. The ego is attachment to pleasures and vices.
The alternative is what? “Working to live” is often just making more money so you can spend it hiking, traveling, and maximizing your dopamine. Maximizing your happy chemicals is also materialist.
Working a substantive job contributing positively to the work is among the most important and fulfilling things one can do with their life, alongside raising a family
Ruling is all about balance and drawing lines. Why is alcohol and tobacco banned for people under 18? Why are heroine and cocaine banned? Aren't these two cases examples of liberties that the government is cutting?
The government draws a line when the age to vote is 18, or when the age to drink is 18, or when it prevents you from owning an ak-47. There is no escaping drawing lines, it is inherent to life. Even when not seemingly drawing any line, you are just drawing a line somewhere due to inertia, a sort of implicit default.
Some lines are popular, such as the drinking age, others are impopular, such as tax rates, but both are necessary.
A society drunk on liberty is an evil too, as ancient philosophers already exposed, as there is no balance.
The role of the rulers of a people is not only to enforce the collective will of the people, but to go beyond it to the position of a leader. No one wants to pay taxes or a tax hike, but if there are no taxes, a state cannot be run. Here, the leaders are going beyond the collective will to protect the collective itself.
There are also plenty of cases where the collective is misguided, such in the case of the entertainment industry (and I'm including trash and sloppy TV and online content here), which is idiotizing society. Should people be throwing themselves into an abyss of hedonism instead of following the value of temperance and seeking wisdom? Yes, but many do not. The state of our current societies reflect our current values. "Got what I voted for", right? Disfruten lo votado, as we say in Spanish.
Here is where the imperative of the leader to do what is good and right is most obvious. The leaders are supposed to be the best among us, and while they often are not (again, a reflection of the values of society), this legitimizes them to make unpopular choices, up to a certain degree. The degree of power to invest in a leader is also a line that the collective draws. (As a note to this, bad leaders like Trump are both a reflection of the values of society, and the result of good leaders failing to do what is right and good. There are other factors, but these are the most important ones.)
When governments decide to ban social media (which is different from censorship, if only the medium is banned and not the message), a line is being drawed, and in my opinion, it is a good line to draw.
Notice how banning social media solves none of these problems. It just makes us blind to the problems and unable to speak about them.
They banned Signal too, that's not social media.
While it's true that lines have to be drawn to maintain any semblance of order in society, I wish we'd be more critical of who's actually drawing the lines, by what means, and for what purpose.
