That’s incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.

The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling or distributing GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. For example, all Linux distributions contain GPL-licensed software, as the Linux kernel is GPLv2.

Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military purposes (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.

Exactly!

If you are referring to licenses that prohibit commercial use or prevent certain types of users from using the software, those licenses are not open source because they “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor”.

For example, if a developer offers their software in a source-available “community” version that is restricted to non-commercial use and a proprietary “enterprise” version, neither the community version nor the enterprise version is open source. On the other hand, if a developer uses an open core licensing model by offering an open source “community” version and a proprietary “enterprise” version, the community version is open source while the enterprise version is not.

Open source software can be sold at different prices to different customers, and still remain open source. Open source software can also be sold only to certain types of customers, and still remain open source. Who the developer decides to sell or distribute the software to, and at what price, is unrelated to how the software is licensed.

However, because the Open Source Definition prohibits open source software licenses from discriminating against “any person or group of persons”, the customers who buy open source software cannot be restricted from reselling or redistributing the software to any other individual or organization.

Nobody has any objection to companies making their source code available, and they are free to call their software “source-available”, “source-first”, or some other term because their source code is available. But if they restrict what users can do with the software, then it isn’t open source. MongoDB, Redis, and even FUTO now all recognize this distinction.

The FOSS community, at large, doesn’t tolerate the watering down of recognized terms such as “open source” by bad actors who want to co-opt the term for marketing while denying users the right to use open source software for any purpose. That is known as openwashing. This kind of misappropriation is not welcome in any kind of movement, not just the FOSS movement.

The free software and open source software movements both support rights for users, which include the right to use free software and open source software for all commercial purposes without restriction. These movements support the release of source code as one requirement for ensuring these user rights, but source availability is not the only requirement for a piece of software to be open source.

There’s no problem with creating another classification of restricted source-available licenses as long as it isn’t called open source, a term rooted in the open source software movement’s adoption of the Open Source Definition for over 20 years.

As for myself, I personally prefer source-available software over software with no source available, though I also prefer FOSS over restrictively licensed source-available software.

deleted by creator

Proprietary source-available software existed before open source software, and that’s what these restricted licenses are. The FOSS community does not appreciate businesses co-opting the term open source to promote software that doesn’t grant users the right to use the source code for any purpose.

Yikes. I’ll be sticking with NewPipe and other FOSS apps.

Between these two options DuckDuckGo Browser is at least free and open source, while Vivaldi is closed source, which makes DuckDuckGo Browser the better choice.

Firefox and its forks are better than both. Firefox’s Gecko engine is independent of Google and Apple, while Vivaldi uses Google’s Blink engine and DuckDuckGo Browser uses either Blink or Apple’s WebKit engine depending on platform.

Hey, I think you’re totally right to challenge a statistic when it looks questionable. Censuswide didn’t release the full data publicly, and the survey was commissioned by the Ghostery ad blocker, so there’s reason to suspect that the data is biased.

I trust the YouGov data more, since YouGov is also a credible pollster and the data is being provided as market research data for businesses. However, since I don’t subscribe to their data service, I don’t have details of the methodology here, either.

Frankly, I’m not sure about the quality of the Censuswide survey.

Market data from YouGov Global Profiles shows that 51-52% of people globally (in “48 markets”) use ad blocking on at least 1 device. That percentage is 45-46% for people in the US.

My point is that when a significant proportion of internet users have ad blockers, they’re not just niche tools anymore.

Mull has defaults that improve privacy at the cost of performance and website compatibility. They maintain a list of changes that you can reverse through about:config. If Mull seems slow for you, consider re-enabling the JavaScript JIT.

Over half of all Americans use an ad blocker. It’s time to recognize that average users do block ads.

Tusky has been working very well for me on Android. There’s also Ice Cubes for iOS. Both are free and open source.

Any details on that? The full uBlock Origin works well on mobile and I don’t see how a lite version with reduced blocking effectiveness could be more useful.

I was responding to a comment that claimed “he isn’t on the project since last year”. Based on his activity on social media, he is clearly still in the project.

That’s dubious, since the “former” lead developer is still referring to the project with the pronoun “we” on social media.

That’s just the first thing that came to mind. Any product with consumable refills (razor blades, electric toothbrush heads, air/water filter replacements, etc.) would also work as an example.

Let’s say you want to buy a printer from a retailer. The retailer also sells replacement ink cartridges, and so does the printer manufacturer. The manufacturer prefers that you buy the ink cartridges directly from them, because their margins are higher when they don’t have to pay the retailer a cut.

To encourage customers to buy the cartridges directly from them, the manufacturer provides a link or QR code to their online ink cartridge store on the product box, printer manual, and another paper insert inside the box. The manufacturer might offer more competitive pricing than the retailer or some other enticement, like a coupon.

However, the retailer implements an anti-steering rule, preventing the printer manufacturer from providing a link or QR code to their online ink cartridge store on the product packaging, printer manual, or anything inside the box, as a requirement for the printer to appear on the retailer’s shelves. (As a result of corporate consolidation, there is only one other retailer in the entire country.) This is the equivalent of what Apple is doing to apps in their App Store: preventing developers from disclosing that users can purchase subscriptions or other app-related digital goods on the developer’s website.