commoner

Excellent. The next step is for Google to release a free and open source way for Android developers to build apps that send RCS messages. Currently, the only messaging app on Android that fully supports RCS is Messages by Google, which is closed source and requires Google Play Services to activate RCS features.

Also, end-to-end encryption is not part of the RCS specification, but is a proprietary extension to RCS that Google has made exclusive to Messages by Google.[1] This feature should be made open and added to the actual RCS specification so that Apple and other vendors can make use of it.

(Notes: There is a proprietary RCS API which Google only allows Samsung apps to use to communicate with Messages by Google.[2] Verizon has an app called Verizon Messages or Message+ that uses RCS to some extent, but this is an incomplete implementation that only works on Samsung devices on the Verizon network with no cross-carrier compatibility.[3])

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/google-enables-end-t...

[2] https://www.xda-developers.com/google-messages-rcs-api-third...

[3] https://www.verizon.com/support/knowledge-base-222792/

Cosmic has fractional scaling. I'm not sure about XWayland compatibility.

> In Pop!_OS 22.04 LTS, you can scale your resolution by 200%, 300%, or 400% to make these elements easier to see. However, you can also toggle the “Fractional Scaling” feature in the Displays settings for access to scaling options in 25% increments (125%, 150%, 175%, etc.). This past month, fractional scaling functionality was implemented into COSMIC DE as well.

https://blog.system76.com/post/cosmic-skies-of-a-colorado-ju...

> Have they announced a potential release date for Cosmic?

In May of this year, System76 announced that Cosmic DE would be released in 2024, possibly to be included in the next LTS version of Pop!_OS.

> As we develop COSMIC DE for its 2024 release, Pop!_OS 22.04 LTS will continue to receive updates, such as the recently released system76-scheduler-2.0. Development efforts will be focused on COSMIC DE in lieu of 23.04 and 23.10.

https://twitter.com/system76/status/1658935658642284546

Ungoogled Chromium is a Chromium-based browser with Google services stripped out.

- Project and source: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

- Binaries: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina...

For Linux users, Junction is a FOSS browser picker that works just like Choosy does on macOS. These browser pickers are more flexible than selecting just one default browser, and being able to inspect URLs before opening them is a nice security feature.

https://github.com/sonnyp/Junction

> it doesn't have automatic updates

That's not accurate. LibreWolf has an automatic updater for Windows.[1] On Linux, updates for most applications are handled by the operating system's package manager, and LibreWolf also maintains a Flatpak.[2] On macOS, LibreWolf has a Homebrew cask.[3] Flatpak and Homebrew can be configured for automatic updates.

I've been very satisifed with LibreWolf and haven't experienced any significant issues.

> Mullvad Browser would be a better choice

Mullvad Browser is a nice fork, but it doesn't include any syncing (like Firefox Sync), which makes it a non-starter as a primary browser for anyone who uses that feature.

[1] https://librewolf.net/installation/windows/

[2] https://flathub.org/apps/io.gitlab.librewolf-community

[3] https://librewolf.net/installation/macos/

T-Mobile acquired Mint Mobile in March 2023.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/15/1163743380/t-mobile-buys-mint...

Even before the acquisition, Mint Mobile was just a T-Mobile MVNO. While Mint Mobile has less expensive plans than T-Mobile, and switching would reduce T-Mobile's profit margin, the quality of Mint Mobile's service is also lower:

> Mint runs on T-Mobile networks so will get the same coverage except it does not get domestic roaming (on AT&T, Verizon, US Cellular, and other small regional carriers such as ACS/GCI in Alaska) that T-Mobile post-paid or pre-paid does. Mint is “deprioritized” (on QCI 7) meaning it will get slower speeds than most T-Mobile plans (that are on QCI 6). How much slower depends on the exact second how many people are on the same tower & band compared to the capacity of the tower/band, but with speeds usually between 20-90% of T-Mobile Magenta/Pre-Paid customers at the same time & location.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mintmobile/comments/wm1ynh/mint_mob...

The U.S. wireless carrier industry is in desperate need of more competition. Price increases (such as this one and T-Mobile's earlier removal of the autopay discount for credit card purchases) are exactly what happen when corporate consolidation (T-Mobile merging with Sprint) reduces the number of high-end carriers from 4 to 3.

> I do however expect for this particular instance, they spent a lot of time finding a particularly wonderful €3 wine - while the vast majority at this price probably are distinctly less good.

The article says the opposite:

> There were plenty of wines under €3 to choose from, but they decided to go with the cheapest and worst-tasting one they could find. a €2.50 bottle was selected and then disguised it as a premium product by naming it ‘Chateau Colombier’ and creating a more eye-catching label.

An issue has been created to implement support Wireguard-only peers like Mullvad exit nodes in Headscale:

https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/issues/1545

Headscale is a FOSS replacement for Tailscale's closed source coordination server. It is compatible with Tailscale's client apps, which are FOSS for Linux and Android, and partially closed source for macOS and Windows (https://tailscale.com/opensource/).

That's not a fair comparison. Final Cut Pro's price on macOS has been $299.99 since 2011, and Apple sells a "Pro Apps Bundle for Education" available to everyone that includes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and other macOS apps for $199.99 (https://www.apple.com/us-edu/shop/product/BMGE2Z/A/pro-apps-...).

I'm sure a lot of users would appreciate a one-time payment option for Final Cut Pro or Logic Pro on the iPad, including teenagers who have some money saved up.

I agree that if open source client software requires a proprietary web service to be used, that software as a whole is not open source. That doesn't mean the test of the four freedoms is insufficient, it simply means that the test needs to be applied to both the client and the server.

> VSCodium may be open source in theory, but it's designed to be deployed in a less functional fashion than VSCode, more like a "Freemium", hence the "Codium", ringing me like "-ish", or "looks like".

VSCodium is not "designed" to be less functional, since it is a project maintained by developers who are unaffiliated with Microsoft. VSCodium is an application that is "deployed" in the exact same way as Visual Studio Code on the desktop. The name VSCodium is a nod to Chromium, not "freemium".[1]

Using the Chrome analogy, Visual Studio Code is like Chrome, proprietary and closed source. Microsoft's "Code - OSS" repo[2] is like Chromium, and serves as a functional open source base for the closed source software with the proprietary client-side features omitted. VSCodium[3] is like Ungoogled Chromium,[4] with both being community projects unaffiliated with Microsoft/Google. VSCodium takes "Code - OSS", strips out the telemetry, and uses the Open VSX Registry[5] for extensions by default instead of Microsoft's proprietary Visual Studio Marketplace.

> Or you can embed it as an editor to your project, but not much more.

Have you ever used VSCodium? It's a full editor that includes almost all of the features of Visual Studio Code. It does not need to be embedded to be used.

> Heck even Atom or its current incarnation is better.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but Atom was developed by GitHub, which was acquired by Microsoft. After the acquisition, Microsoft diverted development efforts to Visual Studio Code, and both VSCodium and "Code - OSS" currently run circles around Atom in both performance and features. It doesn't help that Atom was discontinued last year, with the final version having been released in March 2022.[7]

[1] https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium/issues/28

[2] https://github.com/microsoft/vscode

[3] https://vscodium.com / Source: https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium

[4] https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

[5] https://open-vsx.org / Source: https://github.com/eclipse/openvsx

[6] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/VSCode

[7] https://github.com/atom/atom

Disappointing to see Wired uncritically repeat Meta's deceptive marketing. Llama 2 is not open source because it does not allow unrestricted use. In addition to the "Acceptable Use Policy" and the "700 million users" restriction mentioned in the article, Meta also does not allow any user to use Llama 2 to improve other LLMs, which is another usage restriction that prevents Llama 2 from being open source:

> v. You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof).

https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/

On the other hand, Ars Technica correctly saw through Meta's deceptive marketing to discern that, despite Meta branding Llama 2 as "open source", Llama 2 is only source-available: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/meta-...

TFA's phrasing is taken from the Free Software Definition:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Telling the user that they cannot run software in production is a restriction on the purpose for which the software can be ran. Telling the user that the source of the software must be made available to other users whom the software is distributed to over a computer network is not a restriction on the purpose for which the software can be ran, because it can still be ran for any purpose.

GitBook hasn't been open source since October 2018 (https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook) and software is judged by its most recent version. GitBook in its current form is a proprietary web service. The October 2018 version is open source, but it's also abandonware.

VSCodium does exclude the proprietary features of Visual Studio Code, but I don't see how that should disqualify VSCodium from being open source. (I use VSCodium frequently and I am satisfied with its feature set, so I strongly disagree with your claim that it is not usable in a useful manner.) VSCodium is also maintained by a community that is not sponsored by Microsoft, so I don't think it's fair to say that it is intentionally designed to be inferior to Visual Studio Code. We both agree that Visual Studio Code is not open source.

Elasticsearch (Elastic License, Server Side Public License) and HashiCorp (Business Source License) have adopted licenses that do not provide the four freedoms, and the software licensed in that way is not open source.

> So, just because a license satisfies four freedoms doesn't make a piece of software "Open Source".

It wasn't clear what your intent was when you presented your example, since it does not actually illustrate your point. A piece of software consisting of a proprietary blob coupled with a minimal open source launcher is closed source as a whole because the majority of the software is closed source. That software does not satisfy the four freedoms, and is therefore not open source.

> So a body examining licenses and saying that it's acceptable or not is a good thing to have.

Yes, the OSI and FSF are important for establishing clear standards, and for helping developers and users identify exactly which licenses meet those standards.

We're in full agreement here. It's dishonest to describe software as open source when it is not operational without key components that the developer intentionally made closed source. I would be fine with them saying that the software is "partially open source" and explaining up front exactly which parts of the software are open and which are closed. As a whole, if a piece of software is non-functional without a proprietary component, then it is not open source.

Shareware is not free software, since it does not provide users the right to inspect or modify the software. It is also not freeware, since some or all of its features are not available free of charge.

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

In your example, the launcher would be open source but the blob would not. When you look at the proportions of the code in the combined software, it would be obvious that the majority of the code is proprietary and that the software as a whole is mostly closed source.

Not really. People commonly misuse "their", "there", and "they're", but doesn't change the currently accepted definitions of these words. The OSI's Open Source Definition gains credibility from its broad support from the FOSS community, and because it has been explicitly recognized by quite a few governments: https://opensource.org/authority

> You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project.

Close, but not quite! Under the AGPL, you only need to make the source code available to the people who interact with the software over a computer network. You don't necessarily need to contribute the code back to the main project.

> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

Wouldn't "visible source" be exactly the same thing as "source-available"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

Piped is a great web-based service, but since tvOS does not support web browsers on the Apple TV, to block YouTube ads, you either have to stream Piped videos to the Apple TV from another Apple device using AirPlay screen mirroring or use a workaround like the one described in TFA.

I'm using NewPipe (https://newpipe.net) on Android TV which provides an ad-free YouTube experience just like the Android phone version of NewPipe. Piped would also work on an Android TV browser like TV Bro (https://github.com/truefedex/tv-bro).

The legitimacy of ad blocking is well-established. People have been using DVRs, VHS players, and tape recorders to capture and consume ad-free broadcasts for decades.

Thank you for this recommendation. I was looking for a FOSS replacement for n8n with a similar user interface and feature set, and Activepieces seems to be a great fit.

Users of free and open source software also give back by contributing feedback, bug reports, and patches. They promote the software through word of mouth and offer support to other users, building a community that extends the longevity of the software. The FOSS movement encompasses more than monetary payment in exchange for software, and it is not "freeloading" to use software exactly as prescribed by the license the developers selected.

While n8n is not open source, n8n is at least upfront about its business model and does not falsely brand itself as open source, which is more than can be said about some other companies.

n8n is source-available, not open source, because they restrict commercial use. They acknowledge this themselves: https://docs.n8n.io/choose-n8n/faircode-license/#is-n8n-open...

LibreOffice has the same feature. Type Shift+Esc or go to Help > Search Commands to activate the head-up display. You can then search for the command you want.

GIF demo: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/08/libreoffice-7-2-release-...

Documentation: https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/shared/option...

The Snap client is hard-coded to use Canonical's Snap Store server, so not only would the developer have to reimplement the server, they would also need to fork the Snap client to support alternative servers. Anyone who wants to use an alternative server would have to install the fork instead of using the Snap client bundled with Ubuntu.

Considering this additional obstacle, it would be much easier to stop using Snap and switch to a package manager that supports multiple servers or repos in the first place.

Thank you for making this change. It distinguishes OpenCopilot from many of the other projects in this space, and gives users and developers a much greater incentive to contribute back.

The point of my comment is to highlight how the OpenCopilot License is neither free nor open source. The MIT License (Expat License) is also a free software license, and you can use the FSF's link if you prefer: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat

> Please do not use the Free Software Foundation's acronym, FOSS

> FOSS was initially defined by RMS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

> This nuance is explained here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

Your two links contradict what you are saying. Through the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman defined the term free software, not the term FOSS (free and open source software). In fact, your second gnu.org link is an article in which Stallman criticizes the term FOSS and encourages people to switch to the term FLOSS (free/libre and open source software) instead. I am not as picky as Stallman about free/libre software getting 2 letters in the acronym instead of 1, so I tend to use the shorter and more common term FOSS. The acronym FOSS was intended to unify the free software community and the open source software community, and does not belong to the Free Software Foundation.

> FOSS leans Copyleft, which goes against the "without limitation" criteria you've used to characterize it.

Copyleft is a limitation on the license under which a piece of software can be redistributed, and not a limitation on whether the software can be redistributed.

If you want to nitpick, go ahead and substitute what I said with the text of the Free Software Definition: "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."

The OpenCopilot License does not meet that requirement, either.

Ubuntu has actually gotten worse over the years ever since it started coaxing users into using Snap. It was revolting when Ubuntu forced Chromium to be installed as a Snap when the user attempted to install it through apt. Requiring Snap in this way is fundamentally hostile to Linux as a free and open source operating system, since the Snap Store server is proprietary and controlled only by Canonical.

If you are already using Fedora, there's no benefit to switching to Ubuntu. If you want to use something more similar to Ubuntu, I recommend Pop!_OS (downstream from Ubuntu and without Snap) instead of Ubuntu Desktop, and Debian (upstream from Ubuntu) instead of Ubuntu Server.