I hope he refined the combat mechanics in Chocalatier, cause the combat part of Stardew Valley is something I would describe as awkward and mid but serviceable in a game where combat isn’t the main focus.

Huh, Nura? I like the name PostmarketOS better, but that’s just me.

Cool that you got it working with ai, but I hope that doesn’t become a standard in device porting. Sure with proper vetting the code can be ensured to be maintainable, but that code had to come from somewhere. These systems don’t just magically know how to make software work, so it sounds like they’re probably just referencing code somewhere else that could be under any kind of copyright. Sounds like a legal nightmare waiting to happen.

The thing I’m really hoping for is these general purpose mobile Linux systems being ported to the plethora of bootleg retro handhelds out there. The majority of these devices already have unlocked bootloaders and are super friendly to third party firmware. The problem is people are only porting these hyper minimalist emulation-focused Linux builds when there’s so much untapped potential.

Literally just defaults. The average person does not care what their operating system is, and will just run whatever is already on their computer.

Kind of a dubious claim, in the context of Windows not having nearly as much market dominance as they used to, and Linux adoption being far higher than it used to. Linux as a platform now has enough of a userbase that even companies like Epic are beginning to take it seriously.

Meanwhile reviews of Windows these days are so nearly universally poor, they are basically coasting on nothing but the inertia of their own previous success - which is eroding.

The restrictions on commercial use are what make it unqualified as an open-source license.

Also why are they using a content license for software and hardware? We need to create an online course that teaches people how not to suck at doing foss… and then license that course with a eula, cause that would be so fucking funny.

No they’re right, cc-nc-sa is not open source or freedom respecting.

Edit: I’ll elaborate. The core principles of the free software movement will follow. All other definitions not only do not conflict with this basic definition, but often expand on it with additional rights expectations. The Four Freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).

• Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Restrictions on commercial use are a suppression on freedoms 2 and 3, and notably (at least as far as I’m aware), none of the licenses to come out of the FSF have commercial restrictions.

And in the Open-Source definition, it’s literally in rule 1:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Considering everything else they’ve been putting out right now has been selling out quickly despite price increases, it’s probably going to do just fine.

But I for one am also priced out of it, so. 🫠

The thing that concerns me is the precedent it can set. At least according to this source, MIT is about the 3rd most popular open-source license. If one rightsholder decides to pull a WotC, how many will follow suit? Honestly think that license is a potential minefield.

(And just want to point out, this is not a matter of permissive vs copyleft. I think it’s more a question of competency. The MIT license is just not a very rigorously written license from a legal standpoint. If you are a dev who wants similar features to the MIT but more carefully crafted, then the Apache 2.0 license is probably what you want. Otherwise if you want the closest thing to opting out of Copyright all together, then the Creative Commons Zero public domain pledge is your best choice).

And lastly, the Hippocratic License is worth looking into if other ethical considerations are something you need as well.

You know this is actually kind of funny, cause I think it might be very possible that the roles between Tanenbaum and Intel could hypothetically be reversed.

There was a controversy a couple of years ago, with Wizards of the Coast and D&D, where they were planning on making a bunch of really bad and sweeping changes to the Open Gaming License. One of the controversies had to do with the license not having language for irrevocability, which Wizards believed allowed them to go ahead and deny people the right to make use of the old OGL moving forward, forcing everyone who publishes their OGL content to adhere to their new, more restrictive, license terms.

They never moved forward with the bullshit because the backlash was that bad, but supposedly licenses are not irrevocable by default, and so any license that lacks explicit language granting irrevocable rights can be susceptible to the same rug pull that WotC almost pulled.

And the last time I checked, guess which super permissive license does not grant irrevocability?

It might not have the relevance that Linux has gained, but Minix is an operating system that you can run today. Ymmv.

I appreciate that you took what I said in good faith. I don’t know if I’m just failing to properly convey - I understand that when, say, you purchase a physical book, you own that thing. That’s because it is a thing, your one copy, a finite object. You do have limited rights to resell it too.

But what I’m trying to get at is, within copyright law as it exists now (and pretty much ever so far), even though you own that physical object itself, because it is bound with a copyrighted work, in a sense you actually do not even own that book. it’s because when you purchase a copyrighted work, what you have done in the eyes of the law is that you have purchased a limited use license. Your rights with that book are still restricted by that copyright.

I’m not trying to say that’s how things should be. I just think it matters to understand how things really are, if we’re inclined to want to change them for the better. Courts are not going to be able to go far enough to create the kinds of reforms that are wanted in the Stop Killing Games movement. It’s going to need new legislations.

It won’t radicalize me against copyright because I believe people are entitled to profit from their creations

One, in a capitalist society, the only thing that entitles you to profit from your work is the completion of a sale. I can draw a crude picture of a turd right now, and despite suddenly becoming an artist, I am not automatically entitled to profit. Two, copyright does not help artists profit. It allows the biggest corporations to consolidate media ownership in their names. By contrast, the internet, which has allowed the free sharing of media on a scale that completely eclipses any other time in history, has allowed more artists than ever to profit from their work. If you care about artists making a living, then you should support information freedom. If you prefer concentrating wealth and media control into one small racket, then yeah I guess copyright is your thing.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you want to reform the legal framework into something equitable, or you can keep bitching about the excesses of the evil corporations for doing the same bullshit they’ve always been doing, while still wanting the same laws that make them what they are to begin with.

And meanwhile, you’re having this argument on a free and open-source platform… why?

Here, since you avoided my question, I’ll just spell it out for you.

What You Actually Bought: A License

In most transactions, you buy a license, not the copyright. A license is formal permission to use the work under specific conditions. It defines where, how, and for how long you can use the content.

Many people assume payment equals ownership because that logic applies to physical goods. But copyright law works differently. Under U.S. law, copyright ownership automatically belongs to the original creator, regardless of who paid for the project.

Sorry, but you do NOT own any of the copyrighted works that have ever been given to you or purchased. They are all licensed with limited usage rights. I pointed out the first sale doctrine to highlight it as a very narrow exception to the norm of licensing. That exception was born of the necessity to balance the reasonable needs of individuals (and of course the used market as a whole), with the purported needs of media rightsholders. Even if that supreme court decision (which was later codified into law) grants one additional right for a person to make a resale of the finite copies of physical goods they purchased legally, even then you still do not own that product, because a plethora of other restrictions still apply.

Copyright law is in need of serious reform. Pretending it is whatever you want it to be doesn’t magically put it on your side. That’s exactly why scammy companies like Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, and Sony can keep getting away with all their bullshit - the law tends to be on their side whether you like it or not, cause guess who it was written for.

Please show me where it says that purchasing a copyrighted work grants ownership of it.

You own the physical thing, but you’re still only licensing the copy of the work, and agreeing to that license on purchase. Lookup the first sale doctrine. Your ability to resell used copyrighted works literally hinges on a supreme court decision.

What I’m trying to get at is, this should not only aggravate us towards Sony. It should radicalize you against Copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement

It’s not a take, dude. It’s literally just what the law is.

It’s kind of funny how everyone is up in arms about this now (and for good reasons), when like, that’s how copyright has always worked? You don’t own anything that’s copyrighted, except for what you yourself create and get a copy-monopoly on.

It kind of sounds like you looked up a wikipedia article about Cyanogenmod looking for any claimed feature to try to make it sound like it’s better. Neverminding how dubious and revisionist your claims are (apps were doing camera flashlight long before Cyan, and using any of them was a bad idea because they’d burn the light out, for instance).

None of that matters, because what it comes down to is that Cyanogenmod doesn’t exist anymore. It was abandoned, and at least Lineage is something I can use now. It’s one of the few options still around that allows me some relative piece of mind knowing my devices are free of spyware, and it continues getting ported to more devices than pretty much any other Android based system.

Also, I have a Samsung phone. Their UX sucks, way too bloated and messy.

I wish we could simply get everyone to switch to text-based messaging systems that don’t suck.

I miss when Jabber was more common.