I mean, there’s these ones, for example:
You can download them as Flatpaks and then this guide supposedly allows running Flatpaks under Windows: https://github.com/AbelFalcon/Run-Flatpak-Windows11
I’m guessing, the Xming thing is needed for graphical applications? I have no idea, if that’s what people generally use for that…
It is, yeah, but you can also use it to host a static webpage: https://codeberg.page/
Personally, I use it together with mdBook, so I write my texts in Markdown and then get a webpage with search and such. There’s lots of “static site generators” out there which do something similar.
It’s a little tech-y for what you’re hoping to do, but you could make use of the code tooling for collaboration. People could open issues, if they just want to make a suggestion, or they could create a pull request with a concrete change.
Casually torpedoing the Buy European movement…
Well, the thing is, if you’re developing a library, you usually do so, because you want it to be useful to people in the ecosystem.
By putting it under the GPL, you limit that usefulness to only those projects which are willing to also put themselves under the GPL. From an idealist point of view, I certainly also would like to say that people not willing to put their software under GPL don’t need to be my users. But from a library author point of view, I might as well not write a library then, since no one’s going to use it then.
Many open-source projects are under a permissive license themselves. I might disagree with their choice, but I don’t really want to exclude those from using my library. They’re still doing good things. I would love to exclude specifically any proprietary software from using my library, but that’s not really something you can require in your license without excluding all those permissive open-source projects.
So, to answer your question, I actually don’t think people are being tricked into it. I thought about choosing GPL for my libraries for a while (all my applications are under GPL) and decided against it. Which is a personal choice that others can disagree with, but all I’m saying is, I know what I’m doing, I wasn’t tricked to use a permissive license.
Yeah, always felt like that this kind of myth is rather indicative of the intelligence of whoever actually believes it. Alas, most people probably don’t think about whether it actually makes sense…
GIMP is generally geared towards photo-editing, so if you have an existing image, you can use GIMP quite well to e.g. cut out parts of it or to apply effects.
It’s not really geared towards digital painting or creating new images from scratch, like Krita and presumably IbisPaint are.
What is this article talking about? That’s a UX change. It has nothing to do with privacy or Mozilla’s commitment to privacy.
!gimp@lemmy.ml