To be fair, the "true origin" story is a little misleading. A bunch of douchebags wanted credit for Stallman's work and basically threw an underhanded hissy-cow to try to undermine him to co-opt his position. There was a pile of exaggerated (or often fabricated) stories thrown at the FSF. Commercial players came in to support the attack with a whole range of motives -- from wanting something more corporate to an "arm both sides" mentality to undercut the movement.
While I agree with your point, I'm not sure the alleged history supports it very well. It's a pretty ugly piece of the movement's history.
Now, that was two decades ago, those people are gone, and OSI is a very nice, good, and friendly organization today.
Nope. Open Source is a trademark precisely to avoid this sort of misuse. It's not a "what it means to whomever" sort of deal.
That was done in part due to intentional (and damaging, if ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to undermine the meaning of terms like 'Free Software' by Microsoft back when the FSF was a fledgling movement and Microsoft was an evil empire.
I don't mean to imply negative things about the company. The license is still a heck of a lot better than fully proprietary -- I love the product in part for that reason -- but it's definitely not 'open source' or 'free software' as the headline implies.
I'm talking about casual language-usage, like this headline, not commercial usage. Open and source are regular words, and they still are regular words when used together. Trademarks can't force people to talk as they want, it can only force company to not sell everything as they wish.
Yes, the term can't be trademarked, because they're both common English words used in combination (and that combination has a somewhat older, unrelated meaning, which further contributes to making the term untrademarkable).
But this isn't a trademark issue. No one has trademarked the word "carrots" either, but if someone were to sell pencils under the label "carrots", people would be understandably confused and annoyed.
It's the same thing here: don't call it open source if it's not. The software industry relies on that term having a specific, well-defined meaning. That meaning is widely agreed on, which, again, is why Numworks themselves is not claiming their stuff is open source.
For example, if the Russian School of Math, or Kumon, wanted to adopt this calculator and software (commercial use, tutoring center), they'd be breaking the license.
I can't speak for this situation, but I was involved in situations with corporate crime at high levels. People were very cognizant of what was in email and what was verbal.
When I considered whistleblowing -- what started as little spiraled out of control -- and looked over evidence, there was very little.
One attorney at the company was fired for putting the wrong thing in writing.
Interesting. The lawsuit only has a couple of screenshots of emails which relate to one manager, but no screenshots of emails which relate to the wider organisational allegations.
The factual allegations in the lawsuit mention several times that management asked people to delete emails that related to the policies and targets. This might mean that there's no proof of these emails any more, or it might mean that the allegations are false. I think in these cases, the plaintiff has to prove things.
It's an interesting project, but I'd never rely on it without some idea of what the goals are. Why isn't it open source? What's the business model? Will you charge me $1000 in two years, once I become dependent? Will it stay online in two years? Etc.
There's a certain transparency lacking.
It's fine to say "It's free for now, and will be $0.50 per month once mature" or "We plan to make it free for open images and charge $5,000 for proprietary use" or whatever. Or "We'll support it by doing machine learning to find naked images and pay for it by hosing a porn web site." Or "I'm developing this until I can sell it to the highest bidder."
But there needs to be some answer as to what the goal or business model is.
If you visit https://www.photopea.com/ and click the red "Account" button in the menu bar, you can see some stuff about that.
Currently when a user or team "goes premium", ads are removed. That's it.
There's also a "Distributor Account", which allows you to use Photopea in your own site in an iframe without Photopea branding or ads: https://www.photopea.com/api/accounts#teams
"..make designers less dependent on their software (if it suddenly stops working, you should still have a chance to use your files somehow)..."(source=link) Makes your "..Will you charge me $1000 in two years, once I become dependent?.." invalid
doesn't it? I don't understand
edit:
ignore the 1000$ part. what i mean is that one focus of the product is to make designer less dependent because there won't be a new file format for example. but cpks was talking about the danger of becoming dependent. thats what i didn't get
I like the caption: "Liberty Writers News founders Paris Wade, left, and Ben Goldman work at their apartment in Long Beach, Calif., on Nov. 14, 2016. Stuart Palley For The Washington Post"
I'll anti-vouch for Route53 for personal use. I use AWS pretty broadly, but with something like DNS, I like having a little bit more support if things go wrong. Amazon won't do much without a $upport contract.
It's fine for business use with a support contract.
git and mercurial are a million times more clever than a state-of-the-art DCVS like bitkeeper. It's a new data structure. It's a brilliant data structure. It's robust in ways even distributed databases aren't. It's fast. It's simple. It's clean. It's elegant.
git made several additional breakthroughs in terms of working in terms of snapshots instead of diffsets, keeping much less data, and performing many computations late rather than early. In essence, these result in a system infinitely more flexible and expandable than prior version control systems. Adding new ways to change the source code in CVS required a whole new data format (SVN). In git, that's a minor change.
The full power of git hasn't been anywhere close to exploited yet. The data model is very general-purpose, fast, and robust. It can do much more than just source control.
If someone, of either gender, whom I was hiring as a designer, went into "advanced learning theory and the use of metaphor and semiotics along with the theoretical foundations of design patterns," my response would be to consider them non-technical and not hire them.
And "technical," for a designer, means CSS, JavaScript, HTML, and similar.
While I agree with your point, I'm not sure the alleged history supports it very well. It's a pretty ugly piece of the movement's history.
Now, that was two decades ago, those people are gone, and OSI is a very nice, good, and friendly organization today.