Webmink In Draft

This article has graduated to the OSI Blog.

On the recent surge of single-vendor open source projects switching to non-compete licensing

Two concepts from my early career seem mostly disregarded today in the wake of the popularisation of free software by the open source movement. One is software reuse; the other is source-available proprietary software.

(English)

Me presento de nuevo a la reelección para la junta de The Document Foundation (TDF) como candidato independiente. Lo más importante que necesita TDF es una visión unificadora para el futuro de #LibreOffice, la principal herramienta de preparación de documentos #OpenSource. He aquí el esbozo de una visión que propondría a los Administradores y a la Junta Directiva en caso de ser elegido, obviamente evolucionada en colaboración con ellos.

(Español)

I am standing for re-election to the board of The Document Foundation (TDF) as an independent candidate again. The most important thing TDF needs is a uniting vision for the future of #LibreOffice, the leading #OpenSource document preparation tool. Here is the outline of a vision I would propose to the Trustees and Board if elected, obviously evolved collaboratively with them.

If you are using an Intel-powered Chromebook, did you know you can install LibreOffice on it, as a local app? It's extremely easy!

1. Enable the Linux subsystem and AppImage support
2. In the Linux folder, create a folder called Applications
3. Download the AppImage build of LibreOffice into the folder

That's it! ChromeOS will (probably) do the rest. Go to the applications menu (press the search button on the keyboard) and look in the “Linux Applications” group to launch LibreOffice. It's as easy as a Mac!

Dear client,

Setting aside the challenges of using Zoom under ChromeOS and Linux, I have mostly been declining invitations to Zoom calls because of the terms they introduced from April 2023 in section 10 of their Terms of Service which seemed to force every user, with no opt-out to the Terms available and with recourse only via arbitration, to agree that Zoom could (whether they currently do or not):

1. Train their AI on anything uploaded or created on Zoom (including transcripts and recordings) and use the consequent model for absolutely anything;
2. Have indefinite and ownership-equivalent rights to do so in the future and
3. Be indemnified by me if it turns out someone else owns the IP or has their rights infringed (for example to confidential materials everyone on the call is entitled to review).

Following public complaints they first tried to apply “you poor children don't understand” tactics and adding to the Terms to say they wouldn't do this (but leaving the terms that said they could intact), and then when that didn't fix anything they rolled back the whole thing again as if they were not using AI and it was not their fault that the whole thing happened..

Given Zoom did this once and were essentially unapologetic, they could do it again any time so I try to avoid using their service and will most likely just dial in by phone if I have to join your call.

I prefer Jitsi instead; it has equivalent functionality, is platform independent, is open source and can be self-hosted.

A clause in a software license that says something that sounds as simple as “you must follow the law” is problematic in practice and likely to render the license unapprovable as open source. Here's why.

Graduated to a Meshed Insights article

Of the many attributes of software freedom that could move to front-of-mind, it strikes me that the minimal license compliance burdens for open source software users are actually a comparative strength. Having them presented as a dangerous weakness by commercial interests in various contexts (what has been called “the compliance-industrial complex”) applies a “frame” that serves only the detractors of software freedom. No wonder proprietary vendors want to divert our attention! Open source is so much easier!