orangeshark

7 ms·

1.
by orangeshark 3y ago
Didn't have much of an issue when I installed Ubuntu on my dad's laptop with his limited computer experiences, didn't have many issues. Have you never encountered issues with Windows or MacOS? My experiences with Windows had
2.
by orangeshark 5y ago
You usually require them to assign copyright back to you so you can still use it in your proprietary version.
3.
by orangeshark 5y ago
I don't think there should be much of a surprise, Fedora project is part of Red Hat which is now owned by IBM. Now would they fight to open it back up?
4.
by orangeshark 6y ago
I would agree the big difference is culturally, but I don't think it is really just the licenses that they choose. Free Software people value user freedoms, any license that allows that is good for them. There is no difference when a u
5.
by orangeshark 6y ago
It is both. Here[0] is GNU comparing them. The Open Source Initiative also has their definition[1] of Open Source. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html [1] https://opensource.org/osd
6.
by orangeshark 6y ago
> Even though OSI clearly defines what "open source" means, it is sometimes (often even?) used as a synonym for "source available" Where do they define this? In the OSI definition it doesn't mention having the so
7.
by orangeshark 6y ago
It is a general term for the process of breaking a string into "tokens" which have a sort of meaning. Definitely a common task in compilers, but not limited to it.
8.
by orangeshark 6y ago
See red light cameras. You recieve a ticket through the mail and you get pictures and a video of the violation. There is a lot of people against it and some governments have legistation against the use of it.
9.
by orangeshark 6y ago
the freedom part is not for the software developer, it is for the end user running the software.
10.
by orangeshark 6y ago
Free Software doesn't have to be free to use either (free as in free beer).
11.
by orangeshark 6y ago
last one is sort of basically what GPLv3 has.
12.
by orangeshark 6y ago
It more about how difficult Savannah is to use which is why people use alternatives. Though the GNU project does evaluate whether a code hosting service is suitable. [0] They were also looking into hosting their own alternative to Savannah.
13.
by orangeshark 6y ago
There was a rust frontend for GCC[0]. Will need a lot to work though. [0]: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/RustFrontEnd
14.
by orangeshark 6y ago
It is because of the license. GTK's license is LGPLv2.1 or later[0]. The important part is later, It means you can update it automatically to any later version, especially if the new license is not compatible with the previous version.
15.
by orangeshark 6y ago
> And why can't something be open source when it's not free as in free beer There is nothing preventing you from charging a fee for Open Source or even for Free Software. You only need to distribute source code to users of your
16.
by orangeshark 6y ago
Aseprite is not Free and Open Source software. It is source available though.
17.
by orangeshark 6y ago
I think they mean free as in free beer. So there can be Free and Open Source Software that you must pay for.
18.
by orangeshark 7y ago
I am a Free Software Foundation member.
19.
by orangeshark 7y ago
Commons Clause is added ontop of an exisiting FOSS license. So it will be whatever requirements the base license plus an anti-commercial restriction preventing others from offering SaaS services.
20.
by orangeshark 7y ago
The main difference between Free Software and Open Software is what aspect of the software they focus on. Free Software is more on the freedom while Open Source is more on the development method. They still value the other aspects, just not
21.
by orangeshark 7y ago
Part burnout and part fed up with their development process.
22.
by orangeshark 7y ago
You can sell your free software, RMS even encourages it. The reason a lot of the software is gratis is to lower the barrier to use and spread the software. This makes sense if you want to quickly spread an operating system composed of free
23.
by orangeshark 7y ago
Free software and open source software cover basically the same software. The main difference is that these communities value different parts of the software. Free Software supporters value the freedom aspects of the software, while Open So
24.
Surviving Software Dependencies(cacm.acm.org)
2 points by orangeshark 7y ago|0 comments
25.
by orangeshark 7y ago
Google vs Oracle is about reimplementation of an API. So if someone came along and created a software that provided a Blender-like API, then that shouldn't be violating copyright. Usually GPL software that provide an API that would all
26.
by orangeshark 7y ago
I don't really have that much industry experience but have been reading a lot about development processes and practices. It seems there just isn't one development process that will solve all your problems and allow you always crea
27.
by orangeshark 7y ago
I expect employers to give me paid time to learn stuff they require me to use at work, but if it is something unrelated to the company I am not expecting them to give that time.
28.
by orangeshark 7y ago
>When exactly are we supposed to be learning all these languages? Some argue that as a professional, you should be spending time outside of work learning to improve your career. You can't expect your employer to give you time to lea
29.
by orangeshark 8y ago
Thinking more about the issues, it really seems this only affects a subset of software, specifically server software. A SaaS company won't be able to turn and sell some desktop software as a service. We sort of seen this in the past wi
30.
by orangeshark 8y ago
The preference for permissive licenses vs copyleft license depends on where you value the freedom. As a developer who wants to write software, you might prefer permissive licenses because you have the freedom to do whatever you want with th

More ›