sounds great! I hope this gets some traction, because the official wayland protocols are so dead slow that its not even funny anymore. for example the wayland hdr protocol, open for 4 years now: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/14
Stuff like yuzu that gets taken down for mostly bs reasons. If the EU's insane chat control law passes, you can go to jail for providing encrypted communications software. By then we might need something like this. Dark times.
but its not anonymous i think.
git over tor or i2p may be a better solution for censorship resistance.
wow, they actually reached 1.0, a big milestone! Congrats!
ok, just a few points from me, typed very quickly because im in a hurry so forgive me if its not very coherent:
the gpl is very popular, its the apgl that has less popularity. The gpl is used by thousands of software projects, and the linux kernel is one of the few projects that did not upgrade to v3, many did, but still, they use the gpl! Thats not an argument against it! Using gplv2 is still fine!
if the linux kernel was more permissive we would absolutely not have better drivers. The linux kernel supports a crazy amount of hardware, a lot more than any other OS! How can you say that support is poor? Bad Drivers are mostly nvidia, broadcom, and chinese vendors that ignore the gpl, and yes, these drivers are bad because they dont want to open source anything(or, my guess, its because of low market share). But imagine that the kernel was MIT. Suddenly, wow, nvidia and broadcom might release more drivers, amazing my laptop wifi card works now! Exept 5 years later the driver breaks in creative ways and broadcom isnt interested in fixing it because its out of support. Proprietary drivers arent the solution to bad drivers, they are bad drivers by their design. its the reson why nvidia drivers are hated, because they are mostly closed binaries so nobody can fix them, and they develop them their way so wayland etc is still buggy. If it was MIT nothing would change in this situation, exept they have more legal possibilities of making badly integrated drivers.
you gave andoid as an example, but that uses the linux kernel? The "good" driver support is kernel modules for the andoid kernel, aka gpl compatible? And support for ARM is good, yes, that is by the way also true for regular linux. And when it is not, its because they didnt mainline their drivers, which is a lot of work and doesnt benefit them apart from goodwill, not because of licensing. What is your argument here?
Do you think that android would have been open source if the gpl didnt force them to?
a permissive license doesnt mean it immediately gets abused. But it does mean that abuse is possible, and it does happen. I dont want to live in a world where the best linux is microsoft© linux™ which has ads and their own packages, which are for some reason, incompatible with free linuxes because of extra features in microlinux©®™
The website praises it as a superior license that they chose specifically because of the weak copyleft, I doubt I could change their mind
I was interested until the website proudly stated that the kernel is not under the GPL, but the weak copyleft MPL. Great, an alternative to the linux kernel for companies to steal, yay...
Conversations, an XMPP chat app, does exactly this.
hmm... They seem to have started in 2018, parts of the website says that the first official release will be in the future year of 2021, the download section states that its a "beta", the "history" section stops in 2022, and some text claims that its specifically designed for a computer called the "panther alpha". It all looks a bit chaotic!
well, isnt that just Xwayland?
Lots of "source available" licenses have a clause that a few years after development stops it becomes open source. Thing is, software with those clauses have existed for years now, and I dont know of a single case where it actually came into effect. Its very easy to have a minor patch every four years to prevent the license change, and if the devs of the software actually wanted to open source it, they would have done so whenever they wanted instead of only promising it. Clauses like that are supposed to combat abandonware, but abandonware does not usually happen because someone forgot the software existed, its a conscious choice to not release the source.
Someone made it! Here is the game if you want to play it: https://black-vein-productions.itch.io/tony-hawks-existential-nightmare