So abandon open source and move to “post open source” or ethical source might be a (sad) solution.

It is always the same issues in fact. You should consider your threat model before all. Then, consider the Signal app, then your iPhone supposed to be updated, trusted, with ADP enabled, biometric lock with erasure after 10 failures, etc. Then consider your ISP, then your country. Etc, etc. You should also compare the contexts. Is an iPhone “better” than a low or middle ranges Android-powered smartphones? For sure, yes. Is it better than high-range expansive smartphones with Android ? Or Pixel ones? Not that sure. And compared to GrapheneOS or /e/? Pretty sure not that much. You can also compare messaging solutions. Is Signal better than WhatApp? Of course yes. But what about XMPP and Matrix for example?

And what are your use cases? Remember your threat model. If you are an activist, a journalist or a whistleblower your needs may be different than a “commons citizen worried about its privacy.

In few words, the only pain point I see is the fact than iOS is proprietary and runs non libre source code and Apple devices than APN. But Android devices are not so much different. It does not mean the solution is not private or efficient, if we succeed in defining a definition of “private or efficient”.

In a nutshell, it could be considered as good. But not perfect.

Not sure of that, maybe we need some case law or update on existing copyleft licenses. Source code generated with GenAI tool, even if their model have been trained with corpora of copyleft sources, are not (yet) considered as derivative works. What a pitty.

Could be interesting. Non-free and current GenAI tools violate copyright, we may consider some evolutions of copyfarleft licenses to forbid such use of source code in these types of tools.

Nice idea 👍

It depends of the project in fact. You should reach the community and maintainers by joining them in their Discord / Slack / Matrix / whatever. They may be able to help you.

You can create first an issue, asking for improvements and create a discussion airy the maintainers so as to know which languages are not managed yet and if they are interested in new support. Explains also why you can bring good translations (e.g. native speaker, teacher, etc). It sill help to bring confidence.

Then create a pull / merge request with the updated files. For example, strings.xml ob Android, .strings in iOS, etc. But beware, localisation is not only a matter of translations. You may have also to support new languages and formats for figures, currencies, or dates for example.

Do not use translations services. Project maintainers are able to use them, and in plenty of cases the translations are not good at all or loose details.

The project here is not under an open source license as defined by the 10 criteria of the Open Source Initiative. There is the only acceptable definition of what is open source today, and you can refer to it by clicking on this hyperlink: https://opensource.org/osd

The publication will be deleted as out of topic.

Quite strange, I have my last publications posted here downvoted without any comment, and I don’t know why. This is kind of unfair because FMPOV it is just hyperlinks maybe interesting or useful, at least for me and other people I know. But it’s the life, it’s social networks, it’s people and I don’t care that much ✌️ Please, leave comments instead ✌️

Interesting. Thank you for sharing, didn’t know openhub!

In software ecosystem indeed there is an issue about the word “free” which can mean “free of charge” or “libre”, that is the reason why the term FOSS should be replaced by FLOSS.

In this very software world, the OSI defined “open source” by 10 conditions. The FSF defined also since eons the term “free / libre” by 4 liberties. These two things are the base of trust and understanding for every one.

For several years capitalist companies try to redefine these words because cannot bear to see that communities dislike or hate how they change the licences of their products (e.g. Elastic with BSL, Mongo with SSPL, Terraform with BSL too). They try to get excuse and fake reasons to be allowed to change the definitions but they are not legit at all.

About your example for a “free and anticapitalist” license, it cannot by “free” because one of the four liberties of the “free” definition is not filled.

However this is an interesting point because there is a new family of licences which appeared several years ago: the ethical licenses brought by the Organisation for Ethical Source (https://ethicalsource.dev/) which define the term « ethical source » by 7 principles. You can get more details about the anti-capitalist license here: https://anticapitalist.software/).

In few words, we must keep the OSI, FSF and OES definitions for open source, free and ethical source words because there are meanings, history, facts and fights behind. If they are disturbing for people or if people disagree, they have to create something else. Not change the definition for pure rebranding.

Interesting! Do you remember where you got this chart?

So annoying. It is useless to bring gamification to open source projects. It won’t enhance quality nor bring reliable contributors. People should contribute to FLOSS projects without such things IMO.