Post @post@qoto.org
#Mathematics #Macroeconomics #Engineering #ComputerScience #Programming
#Ecology #Environment #Democracy #Freedom #Equity #Liberal #Socialism #PostKeynesian
#Inkscape · 
#Gimp · 
#Blender · 
#VLC
#WordPress · 
#Mastodon · 
#PeerTube:
searchable
Joined May 2019
It provides the answer without using terms like "GPL" and "Copyleft"... OK I guess they used synonyms that I am not aware of or some figure of speech, or maybe you are back with the argument that for you FOSS = development in the open = GitHub etc.
I give up, cheers.
So no? You don't know the difference?
The issue has been raised on a forum thread you linked and no one from Obsidian team addressed it nor did so elsewhere to my knowledge.
So I guess now you will re-read our conversation and do some research on how Copyleft can protect a software project and eventually provide a proper reply to those users?
The fact that you are replying with "open source" makes me belive even more that you don't understand the difference between Free Software/Copyleft and the rebrand by corporations named Open Source™/their permissive licenses.
Am I right?
@gizmo @EpiphanicSynchronicity @kepano
Well Twitter diaspora brought here a lot of people that it seems need to understand things the hard way, sadly: we spent years saying how much bad social network silos are and now that we are proven right, the newcomers insist with their convenience-driven attitude, in this case supporting closed source PKM and even claiming to be user-centric.
But are you familiar with Copyleft, Free Software, GPL and so on? Were those business related to these or only proprietary and permissive licenses?
There is nothing transphobic in #JKRowling statements, there is a trend of accusations of transphobia, bigotry, fascism and so on just to scare people into supporting your own opinion.
> Copyleft does not address the points Silver and Licat raised.
How? They didn't discuss licenses at all, they only discussed development in the open, accepting contributions etc but my question is not about this.
Do you understand that you can share the source code as GPL in a zip file and keep going with the development as always? If someone invests resources to improve a fork, that will still be GPL and you will be able to merge back changes you like, and your users will be free to pick the fork that meet their needs (if you are so committed to your users this shouldn't be a concern).
And the point here is that for a while now I pointed out **a fact** to Obsidian users: Obsidian is closed source while Logseq is FOSS. This has practical consequences.
They (you included) replied by saying Logseq decisions are affected by VC while Logseq can sustain this exactly because it's FOSS: if it wasn't, like Obsidian, then VC would be a concern, yes.
So if you intend to respect others now, stop replying to facts with FUD especially now that you are Obsidian CEO, OK?
Thank you.
I am not upset*, I'm just asking out of curiosity: why does a proprietary license fits Obsidian team needs more than a Copyleft license?
* I am upset if you spread FUD about Logseq.
Post
boosted
How does the Mastodon authentification work, and how does StreetPass make use of it?
In this screenshot you see that the link to my website has a green checkmark, showing that it is verified. While you can put any link in there that you want, you only get the green checkmark if you put a short line of code on your website. This line of code contains the link to your Mastodon account. If both sides refer to each other correctly, a green check shows up.
Post
boosted
StreetPass for Mastodon takes the same idea, but applies it to the web instead. Every time you visit a website, you can make a connection with the owner of that website, if the website has registered a verification on Mastodon. All websites can now suddenly become potential social connections.
The Twitter API shutdowns show the fragility of social graphs that are siloed and owned by big private companies. A small part of the solution is to move the social graph to the web itself instead.
Do you know that you can export a portion of a Logseq graph as RDF?
https://github.com/logseq/nbb-logseq/tree/main/examples/linked-data
It could be used to link together more graphs and other knowledge on the Web including Wikipedia and Wikidata.
Post
boosted
Been trying #Logseq again. Maturing nicely especially now there's mobile apps.
After the success of the Web and Wikipedia, you'd think people would have concluded that hypertext was a good idea earlier—better late than never.
Lotsa prior art (TiddlyWiki, VoodooPad, Org mode etc.) but we're now going through a Cambrian explosion of interesting hypertexty, wiki-ish tools for thinking, research and writing.
Privacy & lack of enterprisey VC nonsense (cf. Dropbox, Evernote) being the norm is good.
Post
boosted
OpenStreetMap is in trouble
#Microsoft #Bing Map Builder “…has entered the ecosystem with parasitic intents … If no improvements at all happen, we should consider cutting off mapbuilder from the API, and we should consider starting a lawsuit over the copyright infringement. This is not a small hobby website which happened to have forgotten the attribution. This is a cancer that is starting to grow. This is designed to kill the community.”
@EpiphanicSynchronicity @kepano
> developed by an organization beholden to venture capitalist investors
Please stop this FUD.
First of all, it's *venture capitals* that can mean a lot of things, including patron a project because they believe in the idea and it seems so reading the names:
"We're proud to announce our first $4.1M seed round. The financing was led by Patrick Collison, Stripe CEO, Nat Friedman, former CEO of GitHub, Tobias Lütke, Founder of Shopify, Sriram Krishnan, GP at A16Z, along with Craft Ventures, Matrix Partners China, Day One Ventures, Charlie Cheever, Founder of Expo/Quora, and Dave Winer, the forefather of outliners, scripting, weblogs, RSS, podcasting, etc. The round also included participation from Logseq contributors and community members. The funding will be used to hire top talent and double down on product development." ( https://blog.logseq.com/logseq-raises-4-1m-to-accelerate-growth-of-the-new-world-knowledge-graph/ )
Logseq funding model is via Open Collective and providing Sync feature and eventually online publishing.
Logseq is released with a AGPL license, so the project de facto is free for everyone to improve independently from the company with the only requirement to release changes as AGPL.
A license is a document that has legal value and certifies Logseq's commitment to the stated principles.
Your inferences on VC are just FUD and you raised concerns just because you have not better arguments in favor of Obsidian's approach.
Claims like "Obsidian cares about its users" is just like Apple claiming to care about users privacy or Google motto "don't be evil": it is not based on facts.
If Obsidian were released as GPL for example, the team could be sure no one can take advantage of it to launch a proprietary competitor. Instead, if someone makes actual improvements to a fork, the original team can merge back the changes they like.
Without a FOSS license there is no way users can decide to move to a fork that better meet their needs. The Obsidian team will always be able to dictate decisions because users are locked into the ecosystem (standard formats makes sense with FOSS, otherwise not). They just need to keep a good percentage of its userbase happy enough not to consider a migration to something else.
I have asked specifically why not adopting a Copyleft license to make Obsidian FOSS (as opposed to a permissive license that corporations want us to believe is the only possible FOSS) and he didn't reply nor no one did on Obsidian forum when someone else mentioned GPL specifically.
But it is not completely new, we are used to think of Nazism as something by old people but it started from very young ones at the time and feelings of revenge by new generations towards the old ones were the first thing that was used to boot Nazism.
In the threads you linked, someone asked about GPL and someone else specified that Free Software doesn't mean gratis. And the term Copyleft is never mentioned.
But no one from Obsidian team addressed it, as I said, they replied to something else.
Yes, this is why I wrote:
> I’m not asking why Obsidian is not developed in the open, accepting contributions etc etc (addressed in your link).
The rest is rhetoric and clichés.
Do you know the difference between a permissive FOSS license and a Copyleft one to actually address my question?
You can release it with a GPL license and whoever makes changes and redistribute it would be forced to release it with GPL. This means you can pick the changes and merging them back to Obsidian is you found those valuable.
Maybe the original Obsidian developers only knew about permissive FOSS licenses and not the Copyleft ones like GPL?
Sorry but you are making a lot of assumptions. Can we stick strictly to my question?
I'm not asking why Obsidian is not developed in the open, accepting contributions etc etc (addressed in your link).
I'm asking why you don't publish Obsidian source code with a FOSS license attached. Even a zip file for every release would qualify it as FOSS, what matters is the license.
If it is user supported, why is it closed-source?
#Mathematics #Macroeconomics #Engineering #ComputerScience #Programming
#Ecology #Environment #Democracy #Freedom #Equity #Liberal #Socialism #PostKeynesian
#Inkscape · #Gimp · #Blender · #VLC
#WordPress · #Mastodon · #PeerTube:
searchable
Joined May 2019
