eleijeep

I was going to suggest this one. I haven’t used it but I listened to an interview with the developer of asciinema on one of my favourite podcasts: Developer Voices. That’s as good as a recommendation to me.

The interview is here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHwWNFAjAxo

There’s a minimum age on horse ownership?

Wayland is just the protocol. You’re benchmarking a bunch of different wayland compositors against XOrg, and from the looks of things, at least one (mutter) is worse in every metric than XOrg, so the headline of the article is misleading.

I see what you mean, very clever solution if a program is using the configure prefix by compiling it into the binary.

That can’t be very common though is it? Usually the configure prefix is just used by make install to install the binaries into the prefix. If the compiled program needs to know where it is installed it can read argv[0].

Have you seen this used somewhere?

How would this differ from --prefix=$(pwd) ?

It gave him a very visible warning that this will break his system and only to proceed if you know what you’re doing. He pressed yes I know what I’m doing and purged all of the desktop environment packages. You would get the same result on any operating system by disregarding a warning like that.

You need to read about why RMS wrote the GPL in the first place. Yes obviously Imaginary Property is imaginary, but we have to exist within the legal system. RMS used the copyright system as a way to legally ensure the freedoms that copyright traditionally restricts, and that is why he calls it “copyleft”.

Once you’ve reformed or repealed copyright law in some imaginary revolutionary future, you can use whatever code or material you want in your work and publish it freely as a derivative work, but until then you have to acknowledge the existence of the legal frameworks that we live in.

If we start filling our own FLOSS-licensed codebases with code of unknown provenance we open ourselves to legal challenges, it makes the entire license unenforceable, and it destroys the share-alike ecosystem that we’ve built over the past 35 years.

Are you just trying to remove special characters from the filename, or are you also trying to move them to new directories?

https://localsend.org/

Can I see a hat wobble?

Post an example of the input file and you’ll have a shell script before you can say “shebang slash bin slash bash”

I don’t really understand how you can say both of these things at the same time:

I tried to do some research here, but I didn’t manage to find any conclusive articles or discussions on the matter.

and

As both dynamic and static linking in the EU is generally considered as a question of interoperability rather than derivative work, linking-wise virality of licenses like GPL are basically void over here.

If you can point to a law that specifically excludes dynamic linking as creating a derivative work then I’d be interested to see it, but surely that would count as a “conclusive discussion on the matter”!?

Note that countries in Europe do not use Common Law, so legal precedent is not as important as in Anglo-Saxon countries and that means that in every case the judge will have to inspect and interpret the relevant statutes.

I assume that changes must be checked by another person, so is there any etiquette around submissions? For example is it preferred to submit lots of small individual changes, or is it okay to collect together a large number of changes in an area and submit them all in one go?

Could have had the recursive acronym KINGIMP (KINGIMP Is Not GIMP) smdh

https://community.frame.work/t/framework-supporting-far-right-racists/75986

https://crimier.github.io/posts/Framework-Omarchy/

it’s not very funny

Well personally I don’t, but I’m not the copyright holder of the Firefox codebase.

Personally I don’t want any ad-tech related code in my browser, unless it’s for blocking ads and tracking scripts.

Allowing ads on startpage probably doesn’t really entail that though. It’s probably just a simple rule adding an exception to the blocking rules.

It’s not a good precedent though. If I was a Waterfox user, I’d be uneasy about this.

It’s a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.

The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.

If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.

Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it’s a fork of Firefox).