audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms

I talked about that to show one possible counterbalance between liberty and usages which are probably not explicitly wanted by the authors.

Another common example of freedom/restrictions is someone wanting to have their software permissively licensed while also not allowing cloud vendors to resell access to it. That’s how you end up with licenses like Elastic’s.

Or, if you want another example of “free”, look at the distinction between the GPL and the BSD license as it applies to Sony and the Playstation. One of the reason Sony chose BSD for the basis of its gaming system is because the BSD license allows for commercial usage. In that sense it is MORE free than the GPL, which would not allow the type of usage Sony did with the Playstation without conferring more responsibility to Sony, for instance, releasing their source. Under BSD they have no obligation to do so, hence it is more free in that respect.

My whole point is a lot of people say “I want my software to be freely licensed” but they do not realize that they may be unintentionally opening the door to usages of the software that they do not want to see.

One should not pick a license that allows for unfettered usage of the software if you have certain ways you don’t want to see it used.

As a final parting example, look at Prusa and their printers. They release the firmware and designs as open source. They they later get angry when companies clone their designs. This is permissible under the license. This is making Prusa want to lock down their future designs to avoid that usage.

Anyone considering licensing of their own software should think very carefully about what usages they support or object to and license the software accordingly. If you release your software as BSD licensed and some company comes along and makes a billion dollars with it, you aren’t owned a cent under that agreement. If this makes you angry, don’t pick BSD.

Freedom comes with uncomfortable ramifications. This is inescapable. Freedom includes doing things that a given individual isn’t comfortable with. If you’re not happy with this trade-off, don’t use a license that allows “any” usage.

Meanwhile, poor Jellyfin just quietly doing the job.

That doesn’t undermine my point, that proves my point. Making something “FREE” (as in libre) comes with the consequence that people can use it for whatever they want. I assume you don’t agree with bombing Gaza, hence it is a perfect example of “freedom” leading to poor outcomes.

Simply grabbed it, and without contributing anything to the project did nothing except stripped the branding and then go sell it.

Unless this is specifically called out in the license, this is an activity allowed by many permissive open source licenses. If they knew that this type of activity was unwanted initially, then they didn’t choose the proper license.

Easy, because they want the social credibility of being open source, but also later, when the project gets big, they want to dictate exactly who uses it and how.

If you care about how your software is used to this degree – don’t open source it! Every open source package I have ever made has come with a permissive license, because I want people to be able to use it however they wish. That’s actual freedom. Unfortunately, a subset of “however they wish” can also be “used to bomb Gaza”, but that is the cost of liberty and freedom. You have to take the good with the bad.

Finally, a good move by Trump. Those trees are taking up incredible amounts of water. This is water that could be used for more productive things, like being mixed with Kool-aid powder on a hot day. Moreover, the trees emit large amounts of oxygen, a dangerous corrosive gas. Don’t listen to liberals – tree hugging is a dangerous activity that can lead to abrasions from all the bark.

If there’s anything I learned from Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax”, logging can lead to impressive industrial and commercial activity and has no downsides.

I’m not. I’m talking about in companies where dev A wants dev B to do some work, but they don’t use git or any kind of source control, so you email over a cursed ZIP file, then dev B does the work and sends it back with a different name. It’s a highly cursed situation.

A big part of the appeal with Plex is that you can run a server and friends can sign up for a FREE account and stream remotely. When you take this away, you’re going to just kneecap the whole offering. This is such an arrogant move from Plex: they are thinking that when this change goes live they will get a flood of subscriptions. The more likely outcome is they will get a few subscriptions and a lot more angry and frustrated people that walk away.

I don’t think they necessarily have to get rid of it, it’s just that you can’t support a company ALONE from a one time infusion.

It’s a scary amount of projects these days managed by a bunch of ZIP files:

• Program-2.4.zip
• Program-2.4-FIXED.zip
• Program-2.4-FIXED2.zip
• Program-2.4-FIXED-final.zip
• Program-2.4-FIXED-final-REAL.zip
• Program-2.4-FIXED-FINAL-no-seriously.zip
• Program-2.4-FINAL-use-this.zip
• Program-2.4-FINAL-use-this-2.zip
• Program-2.4-working-maybe.zip
• Program-2.4-FINAL-BUGFIX-LAST-ONE.zip
• Program-2.4-FINAL-BUGFIX-LAST-ONE-v2.zip

I keep a Jellyfin instance running as a hedge. Here’s the thing with Plex (and actually a lot of companies set up similarly): those “lifetime” memberships are a trap. Think about it: Plex gets your money ONCE but they have ongoing expenses. Sooner or later, they’ll have spent every single cent made by a lifetime membership unless they either get more folks OR squeeze everyone a bit more.

Once they started adding their own shows and making strange UI decisions, I could sense the end was coming. A move like this brings it up fast. Jellyfin is not nearly as good as Plex in a lot of ways, but it’s really Open Source.

Anyway, a lot of rambling, but in short: when there is a “lifetime” subscription, watch out!

Even better, maybe it will support Docker.

Well, if they manage to get it working on Android I’ll be really impressed.

I have had a plex instance but when they started adding their own movies and crapola into it, and requiring logins and etc etc etc I started keeping a Jellyfin instance live as a hedge. I still use Plex primarily, but use Jellyfin and keep it patched just in case. If there’s any kind of ugly action with Plex, I feel like my bets are pretty well hedged. Plex definitely has a lot more polish than Jellyfin, but I wouldn’t doubt if there is a rug-pull in some way or another. After all, Plex sold a bunch of lifetime subscriptions ONCE but they still end up paying to support those. Sooner or later they are going to want more money again.

Removed by mod

Hey everyone! Let’s break down why that viral campaign idea might not hit as hard as hoped. If we’re calling for a day to make companies feel the pain, here’s the thing—consumers can be pretty quick on their feet. People might just push their shopping a few days ahead instead of waiting.

Think about it: if I was planning to buy something on February 28th, maybe I’ll just do my shopping on March 1st or even February 29th if that’s when the sale is happening. Companies are usually managing their finances monthly or quarterly, so one day’s dip in sales won’t make a huge difference. They’ve likely already accounted for those numbers in their budget.

Plus, with all the online shopping and delivery options out there, people can buy what they need anytime, making it easy to avoid any specific “buying panic” on that targeted day. Companies might even use this time to up-sell or promote other products to make up for any lost sales.

So, while the idea sounds powerful, it’s probably not going to cause the big change people are hoping for. We’ll just keep shopping as usual, and companies will keep humming along without much of a financial hiccup. And hey, maybe people will even forget about the whole thing after a week! This is nothing other than a “feel good” activity people can do, but it’s really not going to hurt any business in a significant way.

If you REALLY want to have an effect, boycott a business over a long enough period that it shows up in their revenue reports. Of course, I expect “don’t buy gas for a year” to not be that feasible, so maybe the approach of limiting buying is just fundamentally flawed, especially with goods that you can’t live without, like gas or food.