No opinion on OSMand but Magic Earth is proprietary which is a deal breaker for me.

Aseprite is proprietary, but so is this. There is LibreSprite though.

Unironically one of the greatest people in the technology space of the last 40 years, in the sense of accomplishments and impact on the world. I’m talking specifically about the free software movement, copyleft, and the GNU GPL. The world would be a much worse place without those accomplishments. The fact that a lot of his life’s work is erroneously attributed to the kernel guy doesn’t change that.

As a thinker, absolutely brilliant and unfortunately misunderstood. He espouses radical ideas about the relation of users to the technology they use that are still relevant to issues of today (e.g. enshittification, planned obsolescence, surveillance capitalism, and so on). It goes far beyond “you can look at source code to see if there’s bugs or spyware in it.” There’s a reason “Stallman was right” is a meme.

As a leader and a figurehead I’m not convinced he’s as effective. Regardless of the coordinated smear campaign from a few years ago (in which it was erroneously said “he defended Jeffrey Epstein” or “he blamed Epstein’s victim” or some such), he has demonstrated behaviors that alienate people and people who have worked for/with him (e.g. FSF employees and GNU maintainers) have said he is not a good boss. His comment about “voluntary pedophilia” is inexcusable, even though he has said he no longer stands by it. The Epstein association was fabricated from a quote taken out of context, but I don’t think it was wise to even join that discussion. The glibc manual abort() joke incident from 2018 is probably what convinced me of this - not so much that the joke is bad (humor is subjective) but that multiple developers objected to it and said it made them uncomfortable, yet he “pulled rank” and insisted it be left in (although as of now it seems to be absent). I believe his intentions were good (the “joke” isn’t actually about abortion as such, but rather the US government “global gag rule” suppressing discussions of such) but forcing it in against the protests of the community was inappropriate in my opinion.

Overall despite the above I feel he’s done more good than harm to the world, however, I’m not sure how much more good he can do in his position. I feel like the term “Stallmanism” would be an apt term for his thought but because of the above I feel leery associating myself with the guy.

To be clear, it used to be fully free software, then became proprietary for a little while, and then as of 17 June 2024 it became free again. So the most recent release 11.15.0 (from two days ago) is fully free, but the previous one isn’t.

“Privacy centric” is irrelevant because because this is the free software movement, not the privacy movement (also, this is not reddit, we have a higher standard of conduct here).

Further reading on free software philosophy. Most relevant is why software should not have owners (1994) as this is fundamentally where FUTO disagrees with the open source/free software movement.

I also made a prior comment here about the fundamental difference between “fauxpen source” licenses like FUTO’s and real FOSS licenses. You seem to characterize it as “stealing code and profiting off it” but the strength of free software is in collaboration and community, not so much competition, so sharing is considered a virtue here. I talked more about it here in a reddit comment referencing my previous lemmy comment.

This will probably be my last comment on FUTO/Grayjay in this thread, since I’ve said all I intend to say several times here and on reddit. I might make a master post about the problems of fauxpen source at some point.

I don’t have any opinion on grayjay but this is the open source community and grayjay is proprietary. That’s the only reason I downvoted your comment

Feel free to use it if it works for you but I think it’s poor form to advertise proprietary products in a thread about a free software project.

My guess (and it’s only a guess, I haven’t looked at the source code) is that the scraping is being done on a server end that they can update without having to push an app update.

edit: my guess was wrong, I found where the source code is and they do the parsing locally - however it’s a plugin that I assume gets loaded in on app start so they can still update it without having to publish a new apk. this is the fix

interestingly although Grayjay itself is proprietary this plugin is Affero GPL licensed.

Vivaldi’s target audience is people who don’t mind proprietary blobs as long as they are “good” or make things “work better.” Given that Vivaldi itself is essentially a proprietary blob combined with a Chromium backend this makes sense.

AFAIK FUTO/Rossmann, to their credit, stopped trying to openwash themselves. They created their own phrase “source-first” to describe their proprietary EULA.

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s proprietary and not worth promoting here.

I will continue to maintain that it is bitterly ironic for a product which is 95% based on free software to be so hostile to software freedom. They feel so entitled to take but don’t want to give back, and they justify it by saying that that others will do the same thing they did if they do make it fully free.

A proprietary browser is a non-starter for me, especially when there are many free alternatives, even Chromium based ones. I’d take Ungoogled-Chromium on desktop or Cromite on mobile, heck I’d take Brave even.

I don’t have any suggestions. I can’t think of any proprietary app good enough that I’d give up control of my computing for. However, consider objective requirements rather than subjective terms like good. What do you use the proprietary app for, why are existing free alternatives not sufficient, and can a free app be made that satisfies those requirements?

I’m also not too happy with this framing of the free software movement. The goal of the software freedom movement is to empower users with the freedom to use, modify, and share the software; that free software projects end up being alternatives to proprietary software products (“paid” is irrelevant) is more or less a consequence of people scratching their own itch. Maybe the fact that GNU and Linux started out as attempts to clone the proprietary Unix operating system furthered this view.

I don’t think it’s helpful to look at free software projects as being “alternatives” to popular proprietary software, because this means that even the best free software will forever be in the shadow of its proprietary counterparts. For example, if you have a proprietary program X and a free program Y that does 70% of what X does, you’ll be inclined to judge Y unfavorably - but if that 70% covers what you need from program X, then program Y is an acceptable replacement for you.

This app is actually free (as in freedom) and not merely gratis.

https://github.com/bitwarden/authenticator-android

F-Droid has high inclusion standards (not high enough IMO but apparently too high for many Android developers). If a project isn’t in F-Droid and has no interest in being in F-Droid I consider it a red flag, but it’s crucial to find out if an issue has been opened and what the project’s response on that issue is. Sometimes it’s just because the developer(s) haven’t gotten around to it yet, but other times it’s because there’s a proprietary component that can’t be easily removed.

For example on this app (2fas) the reason it’s not on F-Droid is apparently because it uses Google cloud messaging (FCM) and there’s no interest in developing a version without. https://github.com/twofas/2fas-android/issues/14

Unfortunately with the security FUD against F-Droid peddled in part by PrivacyGuides and other organizations (which Obtainium and its fanbase happily help spread) there is decreasing interest even in using, let alone developing for, this repository.

AFAIK on Android it has a hard dependency on Google services. I don’t mind installing proprietary stuff to my work profile for the express purposes of work but that requires modifying my system to accommodate this specific app and that’s a step too far for my personal device. So I use a free software option (Aegis) instead.

edit: if for some reason I really did need MS Authenticator and not any old TOTP app, I would procure a googled device specifically for work rather than install google or microG into my personal device.

There’s a certain irony, I think - the original free software movement was based on ensuring the users’ freedom to use, modify, and share software. “Open source” came about as a “business friendly” rebranding of Stallman’s movement (see Open source misses the point). Naturally, being friendly to business doesn’t mean business will be friendly back. That is to say, I acknowledge the unhealthy relationship between “business friendly open source” and the proprietary software industry.

That said, it should be extremely obvious that most hardline free software supporters like Richard Stallman and Drew DeVault (https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html) are far from “corporate bootlickers” the latter of which even runs an (actual) free software company (and yet also started this community fork of Redis).

If you can’t make money from free software then feel free to sell proprietary software instead. What we take issue with is the attempt to co-opt the open source label, the attacks on real free software/open source, and (especially in this thread) the incessant name calling and accusations of bootlickery (while also characterizing anyone who pushes back as being “toxic”). Maybe we’re not just simping for Amazon here, maybe we actually see the forest for the trees and recognize the dangers of normalizing fauxpen source licenses.

Damn this community is getting really toxic.

You’re upset that a community called “open source” is pushing back against an attempt to co-opt the open source label? In my view this attempt is highly insidious and far worse than one corporate actor “stealing” (i.e. using) an open source project. These projects were all true free software before pulling the rug on the community and switching to a fauxpen source license, which makes it even worse - if these were proprietary from the beginning no one would have cared, but also fewer people would have contributed, because it doesn’t feel as good doing volunteer work for a proprietary product.

I agree there needs to be a mechanism in place for free software developers to be financially compensated but if you’re changing the license so that it’s no longer free software then it’s just proprietary software under some faux “open” label, at which point you might just drop the pretense of being “open” at all - just admit you’re a proprietary software company that puts your financial interest ahead of the community’s.

We already have a perfectly good term for this sort of licensing model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

You do realize the whole discussion is about what terms to use for differentiating between GPL-like “restrictive” licenses and BSD-like “permissive” ones? Saying that both are “conditional” really doesn’t help anyone.

That’s fair, I suppose - but going back to the word restrictive, you could also frame the requirement for attribution as a “restriction.”

DeVault suggests the term “reciprocal” at the end of his post. Another term often used is “share-alike.” Both of these terms, I think, more accurately hint at the exact conditions of the grant without negatively framing it as a “restriction.”