359

A RULE SPY'S IN THE BASE?! (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

189 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I searched up "Lemmy" on the PlayStore and noticed that Reddit appears right before the last lemmy client in that search X3 do u guys know if there r any other lemmy clients worth trying? I randomly felt like trying all I could find and for now I'll stay on Jerboa and the Web UI but I use Voyager too now, mainly for DMs

Edit: I apparently wasn't clear enough but I was asking for OTHER clients that aren't on this list X3 but feel free to share why u use an app in this list if u want anyway :3

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 months ago

Free software != free of charge.

Nothing about free software says you need to give it away for no cost, nor that anyone can't do it. You can charge $100 for a simple calculator program that is under the GPL for its code. Nothing is there to prevent you from assembling the code and making it yourself, or from the buyer from copying and sharing the program. It's just way way easier to show off the program for free as in price and freedom for most programmers.

It's why the people who made Debian/Slackware/Ubuntu discs could charge money for an otherwise free product. Because the programmers openly allow this.

And programming is itself labor, just a lot of free software devs don't worry too much about getting paid for it.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source in order to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.

Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line stated in the GNU GPL plead for permission, saying that they “won't charge money for the GNU software” or such like. That won't get them anywhere with us. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

The point I was trying to make (and I should have made properly) is that paid software has a free tier supported by ads. It being paid is just a trigger that makes me think "are they injecting google's code in their product". And if they are then your data IS being collected without your consent or knowledge by Google. (Same goes for any other "ad" provider). Who knows what the google API call takes?