The paid option would require a CLA, wouldn't it?

I agree that it's better than the "open core" model because it limits by time rather than space, as they say, but it kinda misses the point of open-source software. The conflict of interest is that they effectively want to be the only ones who can profit off the software, while still benefiting from the free work of others, but commercial-use is within the open-source definition.

My real issue is that it seems like they're trying to spin it as a kind of "open-source", but it's not. If they were more up-front about that, I probably wouldn't care as much.

Also saying that it's less restrictive than copyleft is just outright false.

free-riding

If you're gonna have that kind of attitude, then you don't really care about user freedom.

I was going to do the unbranded build option but from what I could find, unbranded builds don't get updates.

I'm going off memory. Pretty glad that never took off, even if what we were left with was Javascript...

I forgot where I heard this, but at one point around the same time, Microsoft was trying to get BASIC embedded into webpages for Internet Explorer as a competitor to JavaScript.

Would the internet really be better with BASIC?

Yes but the advantage of Linux over windows is obvious. It's open source. Where's the advantage of FreeBSD? Companies can make their own proprietary fork and give nothing back?

I do agree with you that 4-clause BSD is open-source, but only just barely, and I agree with GP that it goes against the spirit of FOSS even if it is technically "open-source".

Plus the advertising clause is just an obnoxious thing to have in a license regardless.

For something as important as your web browser, that's a pretty good reason to me.

My vote is to agree with what you were going to do and just ignore it and move on, since it's easy to set up accounts on other instances anyway. I really don't like the idea of instances being coerced into making changes like this, just on principle.

I really hate how this whole fracturing thing is going across Lemmy instances. Forcing other instances to change rules the way that I've been seeing it just really rubs me the wrong way. It feels like it's happening all over the place, and it's turning Lemmy into a bunch of echo chambers. I wish there was some lighter form of blocking than defederation, like a default black that individual users to disable. It instances used something like that, I think things would be much better, since the choice would still be in the user's hands.

I use Nvidia's proprietary driver because the open-source Nouveau driver won't work with my display. Will this update break the driver, or just make it slower?

I'd love to stop using Nvidia, but I don't have much choice about using their proprietary driver until I get my next video card, or Nouveau starts working for me.

Nvidia is undermining patent law. That should be an issue that big corpos can understand.

after 90 days, they just send the BAT back to you. They don't keep it.

The idea is that you're not supposed to minimize windows at all under Gnome's workflow, and you maximize by double-clicking the headerbar to save space. You get used to it.

For a 100% libre kernel, I feel like this is the more sensible option than Hurd, just to take advantage of all the effort that goes into the Linux kernel. I'm not knowledgeable on kernels in the first place though, so maybe a micro-kernel really is the best way to go once you figure out the proper architecture.

Once you get used to it, single click just makes more sense. It's more consistent with how clicking works basically everywhere else in computer software as well.

Number 3 is by far the most important, because most people just don't think about what web browser they're using. A lot of people don't even think about web browsers at all. They just think of the web browser app as "the internet", and that's it.

If you want to be nitpicky about it, you could consider it to not be an "ad" because its not a company paying to put that text there. It's Ubuntu promoting their own product. But I don't think it makes much of a difference in this case, since it's a big annoyance either way.

Fedora (with Plasma) and I don't plan on moving to another distro until something tangible happens. Switching my distro based on hypothetical situations would keep me from ever staying on any distro for very long.

That being said if I had to use another distro, I feel like I'd try out Debian stable, while using Flatpaks and Distrobox to get up-to-date software. That feels like it would be a good approximation of the excellent middleground that Fedora has.

I think this is about the formation of the Open Enterprise Linux Association, which Oracle is a founding member of.