I agree regarding consesus. Unlikely, but: heaving major contributions greenlighted and only replace parts of the code are fat note feasible.

No communication happened to my understanding at any point with any contributor.

And that’s fine. And everybody should license his code as he likes.

But my point stands. String copyleft is important.

That does not mean that LGPL is always a good idea, and charted is a good example, as the python stdlib is MIT licensed, and therefore an LGPL charted has no chance of getting accepted.

Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.

I did contribute once. And it was a pain. 20 lines of code but hours of work, Mailinglists, feedback, …

Don’t het me wrong , it was fun. But would I have done the same for BSD, so that apple could use this? Hell no

Did you contribute to the kernel? Because, I for sure have a problem with it. And I did contribute.

GCC? Without GPL we’d have more compilers – not just one monopolist. You’re confusing protection with innovation death.

This one is so stupid, I had to think how to respond.

Why? What prevents anybody to implement a new Compiler, looking at LLVM … ?

What we would have are closed source gcc forks, that is not freedom. This is the opposite.

I am old enough to remember buying a fucking Borland license

I work on gcc code, I know how ugly, historic in parts and confusing the Codebase can be. But I also know why. LLVM has no such legacy, and this is a good thing. I believe some day LLVM will replace gcc because of that. And LLVM uses Apache 2.0.

So, what exactly was your argument here?

Look at the number of MIT projects with such founding and contributions. Compare them to copy left projects.

What you will find is, that copy left projects have far more backing, financial support and contributions.

There are studies on this…

Qnd to keep Microsoft as an example. If the kernel would be permissive, what would Microsoft stop from using it, adding some property stuff on it and use their monopoly to force those feature everywhere.

Now they have taken the work of thousands of contributors and take all the money.

This is naive. Very naive.

We would not have such a huge Linux infrastructure and support for all those different components without GPL.

Every modern car uses Linux. I repeat, one of the most locked down industries uses Linux on custom hardware on millions of cars.

Indeed, very limiting.

Or, gcc, the Compiler everybody uses to build Linux stuff and the kernel? This is a direct GNU project. Without GPL and the requirements to provide changes, we would have thousands of gcc based, closed source compilers. Most likely expensive to, to build optimized arm code and other stuff.

But, feel free to protest the usage of GPL by not using any GPL licensed software.

Ok, maybe explain the restrictions that offend you so much?

No, they won’t, but they may shoot you.

But their models can not be used as flexible as an LLM, they are purpose made

They have, but no LLM as far as I am aware of.

As someone said something against Firefox.

As someone who donated regularly to the Mozilla foundation: adding AI in a browser is a stupid idea, always will be and alone the fact that Firefox spends time and resources in this feature means, they have to earn that money again.

I will not donate anymore, as long as they develop WI features for Firefox.

Vote this and this comment down as much as you like but fact is, that money must come from somewhere, and the biggest source of income is still selling Google the default search engine spot and outer questionable sources.

This is not sustainable and a bad day for user choice.

I am a member of the European free software foundation, that is 10 bucks per month.

90 to go :)

The KDE PIM Stack is what I use for it.

It does not depend on KDE/Plasma/KWin DM, and should offer what you are looking for

Other stuffis not part of OpenRGB and never will be. Maybe you should have a loook at the project yourself, mainly read the contribution document.

What is your issue? Avoiding fragmentation? Yeah me to.

Currently,I do want to control my mouse, I need a different software that collides work OpenRGB.

This is not fixable by trying to force stuff into OpenRGB the maintainer clearly does not want (he said so).

After we have a working lib, with at least feature parity, I will try to convince the current maintainer of OpenRGB to outsource the device handling, and focus on the features he wants to build.

EDIT and I don’t want to compete with OpenRGB, I want to focus the currently fragmented world of Linux peripheral development in a singular place, so every tool can use it. Ad a library, not a GUI application that just is another project that will die because it gets unmaintanable.

So, please, have a good look at the contribution documentation and the bug tracker. Look for yourself, or try to introduce macro support or other stuff into this project. I have done so in the past.

And to be clear: If the author and maintainer says he don’t want to have this feature, I completely understand.

This will not be a fork of OpenRGB. While I plan to take a huge chunk of it (the reversed generiert device protocols) the library itself, is all written from scratch.

And, as mentioned, OpenRGB has issues. Besides the listed, technical, issues it has also design and maintenance issues:

While OpenRGB heavily depends on Qt, and is written in C++, ur is full of plain C constructs. This is intentional, have a look at the README.md. raw pointer juggling, lifetime issues (therefore, segfaults) and most importantly:

Making it a dependency would not aolfe any of the feature issues. A device, provided by OpenRGB, still has no support for macros, OpenRGB does all the device communication, so no way to add it.

Sorry, I am very sensible regarding this topic. I may have overreacted too.

I would suggest we keep those comments here for the overall content and shake hands :)

https://lemmy.world/comment/20605369

I have to answer to this post directly… First of all: I am a member of the European free software foundation. I am since over 10 years.

Using those distributions is, sadly, a security risk!

Everybody must be absolutely clear about the fact that CPU microcode updates are property blobs, and therefore removed by those projects.

This means: Your CPU runs with only the build in firmware and is most likely vulnerable against many CPU level attacks. CPU bugs can only be fixed with microcode , and if you drop those from the systems you leave the systems vulnerable.

Full free software distributions are a important, but very esoteric.

OP claims even the kernel itself is non free software. So let me just cite the kernel archive

Is Linux Kernel Free Software?

Linux kernel is released under the terms of GNU GPL version 2 and is therefore Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

I heard that Linux ships with non-free “blobs”

Before many devices are able to communicate with the OS, they must first be initialized with the “firmware” provided by the device manufacturer. This firmware is not part of Linux and isn’t “executed” by the kernel – it is merely uploaded to the device during the driver initialization stage.

While some firmware images are built from free software, a large subset of it is only available for redistribution in binary-only form. To avoid any licensing confusion, firmware blobs were moved from the main Linux tree into a separate repository called linux-firmware.

It is possible to use Linux without any non-free firmware binaries, but usually at the cost of rendering a lot of hardware inoperable. Furthermore, many devices that do not require a firmware blob during driver initialization simply already come with non-free firmware preinstalled on them. If your goal is to run a 100% free-as-in-freedom setup, you will often need to go a lot further than just avoiding loadable binary-only firmware blobs.

https://www.kernel.org/faq.html

We ate talking about:

• CPU Microcode
• Firmware for network and WiFi cards

Those are not just “some hardware will not work”. Currently, don’t using those blobs that you will have an vulnerable CPU but ad you are also offline that should be safe /sarcasm

So, you have an open system with coreboot, and do not use firmware?

You don’t load the microcode patches that makes you CPU safe?

You know that then you should not use any browser with JS or WASM engine? just asking because those exploits are still being used …