Lmao that my pedanticism could be perceived as BSD advocacy - fwiw, I primarily use GNU/Linux, I develop GPL-licensed software, and I think GPLv3 or AGPLv3 are good choices for many new projects starting today.

My opinions about the history and future of copyleft are somewhat complicated but I didn’t mention any opinions in the comment you’re replying to - I was just correcting your factual misunderstandings about the accepted definitions of these terms.

The primary purpose of those buttons is of course to let those sites track everyone’s browsing activity across every site that uses them, which does not require that anyone ever click on them.

Even if less than 0.0001% of people click them, anyone with an SEO/spammer “grindset” will assure site operators that the potential benefit of someone sharing a link they otherwise wouldn’t have is still at least theoretically non-zero. And, since there is absolutely no cost at all besides an acceptable number of extra milliseconds per pageload, really, it would be downright irresponsible not to have them there!

By “solar power in operation” (in GW) i think they mean maximum output capacity rather than actual production, since these numbers add up to 923 GW while wikipedia says in 2024 there was 2.13 petawatt-hours (243 GW on average) actually produced by solar.

encryption would prevent the modem from seeing it when someone sends it, but such a short string will inevitably appear once in a while in ciphertext too. so, it would actually make it disconnect at random times instead :)

(edit: actually at seven bytes i guess it would only occur once in every 72PB on average…)

As more data becomes available

Then we can start doing more with it

And as we do more with it

That that creates more data

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)

poe’s law exemplar 😬

Delta is the only U.S.-based mainline carrier where flight attendants, fleet service, and mechanics are not represented by a union

you could edit your post title…

Have you tried https://mike-fabian.github.io/ibus-typing-booster/ ?

I have not, but I think it does what you’re looking for.

The demo video emphasizes its use as an emoji picker but it was originally created for typing Indic languages.

if that is the case I choose upper-left of the political compass for you (:

i’m curious, where do you place yourself on that compass? if you’ve got 20 minutes I highly recommend this video about it.

and here i does it for free 🤡

At first i thought, wow, cool they’re still developing that? Doing a release or two a year, i see.

I used to use it long ago, and was pretty happy with it.

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.

fyi: GNU coreutils are licensed GPL, not AGPL.

there is so much other confusion in this thread, i can’t even 🤦