As I wrote in the thread about this last month on !linux@lemmy.ml:

I wonder how much work is entailed in transforming Fedora in to a distro that meets some definition of the word “Sovereign” 🤔

Personally I wouldn’t want to make a project like this be dependent on the whims of a US defense contractor like RedHat/IBM, especially after what happened with CentOS.

and, re: “what do you mean ‘redhat is a defense contractor’?!”: here are some links.

(source)

Nope.

Nope, it is.

It allows someone to use code without sharing the changes of that code. It enables non-free software creators like Microsoft to take the code, use it however they like, and not have to share back.

This is correct; it is a permissive license.

This is what Free Software prevents.

No, that is what copyleft (aims to) prevent.

Tired of people calling things like MIT and *BSD true libre/Free Software.

The no True Scotsman fallacy requires a lack of authority about what what constitutes “true” - but in the case of Free/Libre software, we have one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

If you look at this license list (maintained by the Free Software Foundation’s Licensing and Compliance Lab) you’ll see that they classify many non-copyleft licenses as “permissive free software licenses”.

They’re basically one step away from no license at all.

Under the Berne Convention of 1886, everything is copyrighted by default, so “no license at all” means that nobody has permission to redistribute it :)

The differences between permissive free software licenses and CC0 or a simple declaration that something is “dedicated to the public domain” are subtle and it’s easy to see them as irrelevant, but the choice of license does have consequences.

The FSF recommends that people who want to use a permissive license choose Apache 2.0 “for substantial programs” because of its clause which “prevents patent treachery”, while noting that that clause makes it incompatible with GPLv2. For “simple programs” when the author wants a permissive license, FSF recommends the Expat license (aka the MIT license).

It is noteworthy that the latter is compatible with GPLv2; MIT-licensed programs can be included in a GPLv2-only work (like the Linux kernel) while Apache 2.0-licensed programs cannot. (GPLv3 is more accommodating and allows patent-related additional restrictions to be applied, so it is compatible with Apache 2.0.)

What is a U.S.-sanctioned place? Why does the U.S. government think this is a bad thing?

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

🎉 sometimes US sanctions actually do lead to positive outcomes :)

I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses. Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike Libre licenses?

The word “libre” in the context of licensing exists to clarify the ambiguity of the word “free”, to emphasize that it means “free as in freedom” rather than “free as in beer” (aka no cost, or gratis) as the FSF explains here.

The MIT license is a “libre” license, because it does meet the Free Software Definition.

I think the word you are looking for here is copyleft: the MIT license is a permissive license, meaning it is not a copyleft license.

I don’t know enough about the Rust community to say why, but from a distance my impression is that yes they do appear to have a cultural preference for permissive licenses.

!meshtastic@mander.xyz is the more active of the two lemmy communities about it

Fuck this project, but… their source code can be free and open source even if they distribute binaries which aren’t. (Which they can do if they own the copyright, and/or if it is under a permissive non-copyleft FOSS license.)

And if the source code is actually FOSS, and many people actually want to use it, someone else will distribute FOSS binaries without this stupid EULA. So, this BS is still much better than a non-FOSS license like FUTO’s.

I immediately knew this was going to be from Microsoft users, and yeah… of course, it is.

Binaries distributed under this EULA do not meet the free software definition or open source definition.

However, unlike most attempts to dilute the concept of open source, since the EULA is explicitly scoped to binaries and says it is meant to be applied to projects with source code that is released under an OSI-approved license, I think the source code of projects using this do still meet the open source definition (as long as the code is actually under such a license). Anyone/everyone should still be free to fork any project using this, and to distribute free binaries which are not under this EULA.

This EULA obviously cannot be applied to projects using a copyleft license, unless all contributors to it have dual-licensed their contributions to allow (at least) the entity that is distributing non-free binaries under this EULA to do so.

I think it is extremely short-sighted to tell non-paying “consumers” of an open source project that their bug reports are not welcome. People who pay for support obviously get to heavily influence which bugs get priority, but to tell non-paying users that they shouldn’t even report bugs is implicitly communicating that 2nd and 3rd party collaboration on fixing bugs is not expected or desired.

A lot of Microsoft-oriented developers still don’t understand the free software movement, and have been trying to twist it into something they can comprehend since it started four decades ago. This is the latest iteration of that; at least this time they aren’t suggesting that people license their source code under non-free licenses.

subtitles “fixed” in them without separate SRT file

can you turn them on and off? meaning, is there a text track embedded in the video file, or is the text actually rendered into each frame?

if the former, you can easily extract them into an SRT file (or another format) using ffmpeg: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/ExtractSubtitles

Futo is not open source, as they (now, finally) even admit themselves: https://www.futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

See also https://opensource.org/osd and https://opensource.org/authority and compare it to Futo’s licenses; there are (at least) three reasons it doesn’t qualify, can you spot them all? (rhetorical question; don’t @ me)

I am locking this thread to avoid needing to remove misinformation and advocacy from Futo fans who think they should be allowed to redefine a term which there has been consensus about the definition of since before they were born.