KDE is perfectly sufficient for my needs.
I'm actually praising that, since many Linux users care what desktop environment, what editor do others use. Just use what you want.
Look at the BSDs, they care about technical issues.
Qubes os does not run xfce in a vm I think?
It actually run everything in a vm, not a container.
Use Codeberg ;)
I love repo.or.cz since it is enough.
I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that
Blobs that are redistributable is still included. The 0x things are redistributable under BSD 3 clause license, with an additional clause prohibiting reverse engineering
Which is much free than the gpl
Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?
What??
It is controversial for outsider
bringing it to developers is a way to waste their time
SEE THEIR POLICY, don't complain with me
https://openbsd.org/policy.html
They distribute a Free operating system
The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent.
A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free.
In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict.
The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.
I think OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD are much cleaner than Linux (evidence: Chimera Linux)
+1, but
You even know that?!!
Sorry, I'm asking if WinRAR is free software.
Free software means having a source license equivalent to the BSD license.
I'm curious what's the advanced feature?
scratchandgame
joined 8 months ago
It requires any modifications to be under GPL.
And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.
And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.
How it harms the end user are described.