you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 6 months ago (43 children)
  • [–] 54 points 6 months ago (34 children)

    Confusing "FOSS" with "free software" comes to mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (31 children)

    Count Me in the confused group, I thought FOSS was free as in speech software

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    English is a horrible language full of ambiguity. F/LOSS is libre, but not necessarily gratis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Isn’t it usually the opposite, gratis (because if it’s open source, you could just build it yourself, unless there’s a proprietary build env or hosted env) but not necessarily libre (because of the license?)

    So wouldn’t gratis normally be the superset of libre.

    Then there’s a set of gratis but not open source… someone should do a venn diagram.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    I could potentially just say it costs money to use this software, but allow you to build it yourself if you don't want to

    It's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in case you were wondering

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    RHEL contains non-FOSS components, and so is not FOSS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Okay, I'd have to think of a more pure example, but you get the idea. Downloads and support not free, but compile it yourself if you want

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Oh, there's plenty of examples on mobile app stores. Since it costs to get your app on it, there's a natural barrier to entry for FOSS - so the people who do put it up sometimes charge for it despite the source being readily available.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    All natural human languages have ambiguity. English is no better or worse than any other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Ambiguity is inherent in all human languages, agreed. But English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.

    Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a "slopometer").

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Well, I look up the community, no posts. I look up your post history, your sole contributions are calls for a badlinguistics community, or calling out comments for being badlinguistics. I find your crusade rather amusing, and I am here to respond to any possible criticism you have about my greatlinguistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    While I fully realize that this response is probably a waste of my time, hopefully this comment will at least be useful to someone else reading the thread.

    English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.

    Imma need a source for this claim, as well as a useful definition of a "fucked up language". Linguists unanimously agree that English is a mostly unremarkable language, outside of maybe its dummy-do support phenomena. Its /r/ phoneme is somewhat unusual, but nowhere near the least common sounds in human language.

    English is, linguistically speaking, a pretty boring language, all things considered.

    Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a “slopometer”).

    English is not a hybrid language. There are some who have argued that it is a creole (see here), but that hypothesis has mostly fallen out of favor among modern linguists, and either way I highly doubt that as a .ml you want to say that English is fucked up because it's a creole (implying that all other creoles are similarly "fucked up" languages, whatever that means).

    And, while English does have a large percentage of loanwords (over 70%), that's nowhere near as many as, for example, Armenian, with more than 90% of its vocabulary being borrowings. Again, English is unremarkable here.

    Next, all human languages show the results of prescriptivism - English is, again, painfully boring.

    Hundreds of languages have served as linguae francae over the millennia - I don't suppose you'd want to say that Swahili is a fucked up language just because it's currently also a lingua franca? Once again, humans finding means to communicate is a universal linguistic phenomenon, and is not indicative of "fucked-up-edness", whatever that is.

    Whether English (or any other language for that matter) evolves more quickly due to technology is a popular and divisive topic, with good evidence on both sides of the argument. It seems likely that tech does speed up some aspects of language change while also slowing down other aspects. Stating a conclusion here would be premature, but either way, this behavior is identical in all languages that see heavy tech use.

    "Slopometer" is a neologism, which, again, all natural human languages have.

    "/c/[insert_community_name]" is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. "Badlinguistics" was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

    Speaking of which, your comment is badlinguistics because it clearly shows a complete lack of familiarity with the modern scientific study of language. Everything you said was not only wrong, but immediately and obviously wrong to anyone who has taken even an introductory linguistics course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    “/c/[insert_community_name]” is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. “Badlinguistics” was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

    Well here it is not that popular. It has two members and since you are not the mod, you are probably the one. Since there are no posts why don't you write proper essays instead of attacking random people on Lemmy. I am not gonna respond to this shit.

    English is a human language, ok fucker? But it is an uncommon one, thus making it hard to generalize from English to other languages. This is well known in linguistics. I would bother to get you some quote, but I prefer to leave you seething here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, your comments here make it perfectly clear just how versed you are in what is and is not well known in linguistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago

    How about Pinker? You dig Pinker? I am not delving in the books of this jester without a little wager. Just tell me any linguist you esteem, they probably state somewhere that English is a peculiar language. Then you'll strip for Lemmy if you are wrong mf.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago* (14 children)

    Generally, FOSS includes both copy-left stuff that is free as in speech, and licenses that are restrictive over what you can actually do with that source code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 children)

    No it doesn't.

    "Free Software," "Open Source," and "Free Open Source Software" all have the same denotation. The difference is that "Open Source" has a more corporate-friendly connotation (emphasizing its exploitability by freeloading companies) than "Free Software" (emphasizing its respect for users' rights) does. "Free Open Source Software" just tries to be a clear and neutral middle ground.

    Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither "Free Software," "Open Source," or "FOSS."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither

    I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as "Some rights reserved".

    Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

    What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code.

    What? That's not true at all. You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

    Edit: your comment was wrong in multiple ways, and I only addressed one before replying.

    In addition to simply not saying what you claimed it says, CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, "Open Source" because it doesn't appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses. That means OSI either rejected it or didn't evaluate it at all. (I assume the latter, in this case, because CC-BY-SA isn't even intended for software source code to begin with!)

    Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license.

    No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. "Open Source" or "Free Software" licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

    No.

    No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

    This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can't have a socialist biodome specifically for code.

    CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.

    Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.

    EDIT: "do" = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

    No.

    The rest of your word salad isn't even worth responding to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

    The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

    Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let's not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

    Not an open source license, so what the fuck is your point?

    Now go refute my other arguments

    Your word salad isn't coherent enough to form any sort of "argument" in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do; are you saying GPL licensed software isn't Open Source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do

    No, that's not true. The GPL imposes zero restrictions. Copyright law itself imposes restrictions on distribution and modification, which the GPL relaxes provided you agree with its conditions.

    Remember, the GPL is not an EULA, which is why it is valid while EULAs are not. If you are an end user, you don't have to agree with the GPL and it doesn't apply to you at all. It only kicks in when you want to do something that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Say I'm writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

    Copyright law has no specifics about source code redistribution. Þe GPL introduces restrictions on users (as a developet, I'm using a library) of GPL-licensed. Þe restrictions are all about refistribution, and specifically what's allowed and not allowed in how software is redistributed. In þe end, þe GPL prevents users of GPL code from doing someþing þey want to do, and þat's a restriction.

    A law against murder may be a good law, but it still a restriction. Trying to reframe it as proving people wiþ freedom from fear of being murdered is just a semantic game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Say I'm writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

    Sure!

    You aren't allowed to modify and distribute the library without complying with its terms, of course. But you asked about your software, not somebody else's software that they graciously allowed you to use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    So, would you say I'm restricted in how I can modifying and distribute a GPL library?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    No, I would not say that, not even slightly.

    You are absolutely and unambiguously freer to modify and distribute it than you would be if it were left in its default state under copyright law, which is "all rights reserved."

    Why is this apparently so difficult for you to understand?

    To try to paint the GPL as restrictive is a rapist mentality, where you're asserting the "right" to violate the rights of others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    This is not correct. In typical use, copyleft means that you have to redistribute it as free software (GPL and variations). The opposite is "permissive", you can use the software commercially, and charge others to use it as closed source. Copyleft is good for developers, permissive is good for companies.

    So "free as in speech" is not even a good analogy. "Liberated" is more like it, perhaps I will start using libre more strictly...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

    Wine is not an emulator.

    Linux doesn't require programming knowledge to use, just computer knowledge at most.

    I seen a few go opposite end and claim "you do not need computer knowledge, you can just ask chatgpt for the commands and copy-paste."

    The two commands below are equivalent so why the fuck does every single guide online use former?

    sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade
    sudo apt upgrade -U
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    "Linux requires constant fixing."

    Use one of the stable distros. You generally never have to worry about breakage if you don't go looking for it.

    Linux actually has a large swath of testers using rolling release who we've tricked into feeling very superior than the rest of us. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment