Alright, thanks. Sounds like the existing fields could have been leveraged for that tbh, seems given that the newer field would be overused/misused

Oh, missed the plural, sorry about that. But is that one the same as “Album artists” or yet another one then?

I agree with most of your points but the artist tag in ID3 tags existed way before streaming music services was a thing. Hell it existed in versions.

So what’s that about?

It isn’t more generic than its the same IDE but with presets and plugins loaded already. Thats the point, sorry if that was unclear.

I’d like to extend gratitude and thank you for your awesome work.

I’d also like to extend a whole hearted F-u for the minor panic loop you sent me through right now.

“Eternity is now available on F-droid”

ive been on eternity on f-droid for months wtf does that mean!? Oh im on nightly, phew

Could have been funny if you weren’t comparing their generic plugin based IDE with one of the pre-set, python ones. The descriptions are fine.

This also ironically highlights exactly the horrors and the business model of the intellij IDEs but that’s a rant for another day

But I never used a royal “We”, in fact “we” was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.

Instead of you arguing my “cheap rhetorical skills”, how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.

I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.

What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?

Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form

Imo it’s not been redefined at all. People are just pushing the boundaries of what it means and creating absolutist views on what it should mean. There is a space for that sure, but shaming companies that define where their own boundaries are is not the way of it.

If we do that, you are challenging what software freedom actually is if you ask me

Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that’s on you.

If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing. Otherwise, it’s just Free Software working as intended.

Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and “working as intented”?

If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don’t get to call it “Open Source” or anything like that.

There are so many licenses for this model already, I’m inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself and your attitude in these threads are mildly said, off putting.

I am a big fan of OSI and support their work, but you are treating them (based in what i can read in this thread) like some holy, all defining entity, of what is open source. They are not, and true open source, cannot, and should not, ever derive its power from a central agency setting rules and definitions. If that happens, that will be the end of open source.

Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us

Edit: some autocomplete stupid grammar

What blissful place you must be in, to think the wars have stopped. Hell, there is even inter-Vim wars now (vim, neovim, lunarvim et al)

Dont know the specific artist but its the album cover for a Cranberries album, “Bury the hatchet”

Teenagers? What effing instance are you running on? I mostly see 30+ IT people wherever I go

I have been battling a similar battle but landed on Obsidian. There is a community plugin called “Tasks” that fixed most of my issues. Takes some tinkering in writing the queries but it unlocked most of the functionality I missed

Safari 110%

Such a weird statement. webkit is and has been a fully released browser engine for decades, companies forked from it for licensing and profit, not because it wasnt ready or complete (at the time)

No, its been there for about the same time ios. A few years ago now they changed it so that the permissions are asked for from inside the app (when X is used) instead of when installing if that is what you are thinking about

You are mistaken and don’t seen to fullt grasp what copyright is.

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form.

You are mistaken and don’t seen to fullt grasp what copyright is.

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form.

Notice what is states besides copying? First paragraph on wikipedia, come on.