No, this is different. OpenCore refers to when part of an application is open source, but major functionality or components of the application itself are not.

ElasticSearch is this way, where the elasticsearch package itself is fully open source (AGPL), but you have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for its SIEM addon.

What OP is talking about wrt discord is not actually non-FOSS at all, it’s purely about the community (support, discussions, and documentation), nothing about the application itself.

Even the Steam integration does not change the status of the source code itself; OP could fork it and remove the Steam integration.

It’s more that compositors (picom, xcompmgr) and window managers are extremely complex, and adding that feature in could have much larger impacts than just the functionality itself, e.g. security context implications, task scheduling, rendering pipeline issues, etc. Wayland actually combines the compositor and WM, so it’s more readily extensible than X11.

If you are saying that you are making long comments without reading the post

I didn’t say that. I read the post, but did not click through to the other post from December to realize it was part of a pattern.

I’m not really interested in getting into an argument around license choice

That’s fine, you are not beholden to respond to me.

Perhaps you should have titled the post “AI Code Hollowing Out Copyleft Ecosystem”, then, unless you’re intentionally trying to conflate Open Source with Copyleft (you are, based on your other blog posts). But I remember seeing your post about the “social contract” of OSS last December, and you are in fact exactly who my comment is about:

Copyleft is a reactionary movement from people who turned into the beast they hated in trying to fight it. “Permissive” licenses are FOSS. Copyleft is certainly maybe OSS, but it’s not “Free” (as in either “libre” or “gratis”) if some other person can mandate both that you do something, and what you do. If usage of something is contingent on payment (including payment via feel-good attribution), it’s not free.

I’ll add here: FOSS is also not about some one-sided “covenant” where a creator believes the users of said freely-given software owe them something (money, gratitude, or even just ‘reciprocity’ and attribution). If you’re in OSS for the fuzzy feeling you get when someone forks your repo, or the conviction that OSS contribs are intrinsically good in some nebulous way, it’s no wonder you’re hung up on seeing a transactional return on your labor instead of just knowing it’s out there maybe helping someone, somewhere.

This is a fast path to open source irrelevancy, since the US copyright office has deemed LLM outputs to be uncopyrightable.

Open source != copyrighted. Public domain source code is also open source.

I hate this trend I see of the FOSS movement retreating from the foundational principle that it started on: Free Sharing of Software.

Not shareware, not ‘libre but not gratis’, not ‘buy me a coffee to get access to the code on my patreon’, not ‘free to look at but not to use as source code’: free period. Libre and gratis.

These non-lawyers traipsing in to make claims about the effect of AI on open source licensing are giving me big “I release my code but only if I can 1) get paid for it and 2) control who and how it’s used” vibes. That’s what’s ‘hollowing-out’ open source.

value leaks out of the project

What value? Value to whom? The value of source code is what it does, i.e. the program it compiles or is interpreted into. That doesn’t change by someone else using it differently than you. Google taking Linux and spinning off Android doesn’t “hurt” Linux. It doesn’t decrease the ‘value’. There’s no universal counter out there that says, “this GPLv2 attribution appears more than someone else’s, so therefore this project is more valuable”, that is being eroded if a company goes and uses it without reprinting the license notice as well. OSS licenses have never prevented that.

I said it before the last time FOSS came up, and I’ll say it again:

FOSS is about propagating software to as many people as possible, to help as many people as possible. It’s not about creating legal barriers to diminish the power of corporations; making tools available to people that are better and cheaper will do that naturally (and you were never going to beat the corpo lawyers anyways trying to enforce licenses).

If your zeal to prevent corporations from ever misusing FOSS leads you to remove some aspect of it (free, open, or source), then you’ve cut off your nose to spite your face.

foot… Searching for it

euro office… searching for it

Whether you like the SEO-driving search engine providers or not, they are still the way that most people find things on the internet, and they prioritize Github results. When you’re not searching for “it”, but just searching them by describing things like it, (of which there are many, mostly on Github), it serves your interest to ‘O’ for the ‘SEs’ by putting it somewhere that will get prioritized higher.

If the goal is digital sovereignty for europe

Sovereignty is exercised and evidenced by a state’s ability to enforce the laws they have created. Microsoft operates within Europe. As long as Europe can enforce their laws upon Microsoft (as they can and do now), that relationship is still an exercise of European sovereignty.

Back to my first comment in the thread, “sovereignty != isolation”. Cutting yourself off from external groups does not make you “more sovereign” or something. If Europe cannot enforce their laws upon foreign business entities operating in their jurisdictions, and thus choose to prioritize Europe-headquartered businesses, that would be evidence of far weaker sovereign control of their jurisdiction.

Now, if it’s just a matter of prioritizing supporting European businesses, (call it, say, “Europe First”, or maybe “Make Europe Gr…” oh wait) that’s fine for them to do, and supporting any smaller business or organization over a large one is almost always preferable, but that isn’t and shouldn’t be about the perception of sovereignty or about nationalism, it should be about fighting back against corporate power by not rewarding these de facto monopolies and political meddlers and manipulators with your business.

But once again, that’s not within the scope (or ability) of a simple Office-alike application.

unless you search for it or a repo that lives on it explicitly

Skill issue indeed. Reading comprehension, specifically.

Let me spell it out:

1. You won’t find Codeberg in searches unless you know it exists already, or already know of a specific tool that is hosted there.
2. Euro-Office creators probably want people to discover their tool as much as possible.
3. Hosting the tool on a platform that doesn’t come up in searches due to its relative obscurity is therefore a bad idea.
4. Euro-Office creators chose not to do that.

the vapid useless SEO-optimized articles that you find

“This year will be the year of the Linux desktop Codeberg!”

I find code on codeberg all the time.

You won’t find codeberg unless you search for it or a repo that lives on it explicitly.

Search in Google, DDG, Kagi, or whatever search engine you like for some generic variant of “where to find source code/ foss tools/ etc”, and show me the combo that returns you Codeberg.

Unlike Github, which is

a well-known place to find code

Codeberg is not, and most people have not heard of it, and won’t find it organically.

Codeberg != isolation

I wasn’t saying that codeberg was isolation, I’m saying that you don’t have to extract yourself from all non-European tools and dependencies in order to maintain sovereignty.

Codeberg is big and popular enough that it shows up in web search results

Not from what I can see.

search for “zig source code”

Sure, if you search for something you are explicitly aware is on Codeberg, you’ll find… links to Codeberg.

But if you search for “source code repositories”, “where to find open source software”, “where to find source code for software”, you get #1 Github, then Sourceforge, then other random ones like Google Code Repos.

Even from the projects you listed, I’ve only heard of Forgejo (and that’s only because I was explicitly searching for self-hosted code repo software), and Librewolf (Alpine is on their own Gitlab instance). Also, listing the software that the website itself is built on as evidence of big projects hosting there is a little obama-giving-himself-a-medal-meme-y.

I’m not saying Codeberg is bad, or that people shouldn’t use it, but it’s not well-known and is not something to shame people for not using.

sovereignty != isolation

Microsoft sucks, but what exactly is the threat you’re trying to mitigate by not putting their Office suite on GH? Microsoft deciding to disappear it or take control of it one day? MS does a ton of business in Europe, so they have a lot more to risk than PR history for tools that the devs would all still have on their machines (and thus could migrate at any time to another code repo).

There’s not a readily-available European alternative to Github, and no, Codeberg is not one, because the value of GH is not just hosting code, it’s being a well-known place to find code. If you want a “European alternative” to GH, you’d first need to create an internationally-famous, known-by-all-developers platform. But that’s not “in scope” for their EU-Office tool.

I am not Muslim, but my mother and brother are so I grew up in and around Islam. I think the problem with going the route of declaring specific types of software haram would be that whatever criteria you’d set to draw that line would likely eventually get you to a position where using computers is haram; it’s not like there are ethically-sourced microchips, or FOSS replacements for Intel Management Engine (IME) and closed-source firmware, for instance.

There is actually a now-defunct version of Ubuntu called Sabily that my brother used to use, that focused on providing ‘halal’ apps for things like azan notifications.

So I think it’s fine and even good to try at only using FOSS tools as much as possible, but I don’t think it would make sense (or be workable as a strict doctrine) to proscribe non-FOSS software.

The author of that piece would say you protect your code by not open sourcing it (or by using a license that grants no rights to use said source). It’s an incredibly frustrating piece to me, because it presents hampering corporations as more important than not screwing over individual FOSS users.

The reason they blame GPLv3 is because they claim the open sourcing requirements within it are so onerous that corporations just avoid it, making it so that rather than corporations contributing to that software, they often end up supplanting it with their own versions that have alternate licensing, which then not only denies the original author any benefit, but even makes the corporation ‘look good’ to people who don’t realize or care what happened.

It’s so frustrating to me because they’re doing this whole “pragmatism over idealism” claim, while also not acknowledging that FOSS as a movement is the only reason any corporation open sources anything now. They certainly didn’t used to. But the author seemingly would rather people not have any tools made with or by companies, who are benefiting from them financially, than have both corporations and individual users benefit from them. That’s ideology over pragmatism as well.

Capitalism is bad, but it’s bad because it entrenches profit over morality, via the mistaken belief/ false premise that competing interests will average out in the end. It’s not bad because every single output it creates is somehow evil incarnate, which seems to be the author’s gist.