I just think that they are pretty much same interest-wise, and LibreWolf at least tries to convey some meaning
sukhmel
joined 1 year ago
Regarding the proprietary assets, I used to give it some thought, and came to a conclusion that other than selling consultance services, selling assets is the only way to make money while creating something open source. That's why now I don't find proprietary assets to be something bad.
if it's not distributable without condition, it's not open source
MIT and GPL are not open source then, since they impose conditions. Open source by your definition would be some like WTFPL or Unlicense
No, I don't, does that also prove your point?
This is not the first time I find people attacking Stallman without much evidence or by taking his words out of context. But his views as expressed by himself on his site are also pretty extreme, and I don't find those good.
It would be better to discern allegations and facts, still.
I think, this is what contemporary cancel culture usually tries to do.
I also think, that this is wrong on most occasions. Maybe sometimes possible damage warrants cancelling someone, I don't know
everyone could do it
…proceeds to not do it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think that if replies are rare and spot on, it may be a good PR. But do it every time and it will just be a waste of time without any good results
saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument
Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.
Although, in case you're talking about, the indigenous people's artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame
It's not an empire if you call it a federation /s
No, that's impossible, because they didn't allow it 😭