No one’s forcing you to use it. If you don’t want to, stick to X11. I’ve been testing wayland for a few months now and it’s fine. It does most of I want it to. I don’t need fancy fractional scaling, adaptive refresh rates, or whatever other fancy stuff people complain about that isn’t there. It shows my windows, allows screen-share, and… that’s it. Only thing missing for me is scriptability.
I’m not advocating for Wayland nor X11, just saying to stop shitting on devs who give a lot of free time to write opensource code that none of us have to pay for. All we have to do is be nice - maybe report bugs, maybe maybe donate if we have the means.
Looking at that list, no option seems particularly good at the moment.
opensource.builders looks nice, but has the code on github and the DB is a single JSON file. Editing requires running the thing locally and then creating a PR.
switching.software is a single page that lists all the software. Upside is that the code is codeberg, not github.
prism-break.org/en/ is focused on privacy, very out of date and code is on github.
Privacy Guides is also all about privacy, so it won’t be a generic alternative finder.
I stopped looking after that.
Up to the mods which one they want to pick, but honestly, a link to alternatives might cut down on the “I’m looking for a recommendation for an alternative” posts.
The speeds are as fast (or slow) as the slowest member in the chain. If most people who participate have slow connections, then most of the times it’ll be slow. But if the majority uses fast connections, then most chains/tunnels will be fast.
Again, it’s a chicken and egg problem: people who want fast downloads (and thus have fast pipes) won’t participate because it’s slow, but in doing so, they miss a chance to be part of the solution.
That’s a good question that I don’t have an answer to as I have no legal training. I’m assuming if you can sign a contract online where the legal text is behind a link and the main offer is what you see… maybe? Technically, it wouldn’t be too difficult to simply erase any mention of a license in a pre-cleaning phase of the data, but I don’t know if the act itself would be an even bigger indication of guilt. There would be no excuse like “oops, I just copied this data into my training set, teehee”. But as I said, not a legal expert.
If there are copyright experts that want to weigh in, I’d be interested to hear their opinion. Given that there are running, unanswered cases (most notably again Microsoft’s Copilot), and Japan on the verge of drafting into law that AI training data can ignore copyright, it’s possible even legal experts would have a hard time answer the question.
I’m putting them here just in case. Only costs me a line carriage and a Ctrl+V.
I agree. Either use a business source license like Elastic and others, or fight for the installation of a third party that audits proprietary code for license use and sues if the rules haven’t been followed. It’s why I like the creative commons. They are quite realistic. Most of their licenses say: if you use this commercially, you have to pay. If not, then it’s free.
People who claim business source licenses are “not opensource” sound like such capitalist shills to me. It’s as if they’re shouting from the rooftops “it’s OK to fuck over opensource developers because principles matter more than reality”.
I honestly thing we need that third party instance that audits proprietary code for the licenses it uses to see if there’s a breach. Then they could sue all the companies that don’t abide by the license. Most likely GAFAM would lobby against such a thing because they know they use a lot of opensource stuff that could force them to opensource their stuff, but honestly, fuck them. They’ve made a killing on the backs of free work.