You probably know from other posts of mine that I use Vivaldi as the main browser, it’s distributed as freeware, because it’s not entirely OpenSource, the UI scripts are Vivaldi’s proprietary, but it’s not like Chrome, where only the Chromium part is OpenSource and the rest closed source no auditable, in Vivaldi 100% of the script is auditable and the proprietary part can be modified by the user, in the community they even teach how (although of course at their own risk), but only for personal use, Google and others cannot fork it for their own browsers. I think it is a reasonable measure to survive for a small cooperative in a market saturated with Chromiums, which are also used by the largest in this market (Google and M$), nothing to do with freedom
It is at this point that the OpenSource designation becomes quite relative and irrelevant, in a market of over 100 browser forks and another 70 already discontinued, obsolete or abandoned projects.
That is to say, in a software market saturated with one type of product, being OpenSource, this meaning now only acquires a purely academic status, nothing to do with freedom. Les in a market stagnant with only three engines since 20 years.
Same with the search engines, the best most stables privacy focused are almost proprietary services (Startpage, DDG, Qwant, Andi, Lilo and a lot of others), well, there are also OpenSource engines, like SearX instances (Metasearch) or Whoogle (Google Engine), but there are teh need to use public instances if you don’t have a own server and the results are very deficient, mostly te image search don’t work well.
But, my point was OSI was NEVER about freedom or anything other than source code. Free Software is the political of the two VERY different movements. You could argue that Free Software (not gratis, freeware or whatever else you bring up - yuck!) has become irrelevant - but not to me :)
I understand, but what I mean is that in some products with more than 100 forks, it becomes somewhat irrelevant if you have the source or not, independent of this, as I mencioned before, in the case of the freeware browser Vivaldi, offers political more freedom for the user as some so called FOSS browser, forked and controled by Google and others.
I mean, that the philosophy and meaning of FOSS in recent years, since the big monopolies, such as Google, M$, Facebook, Amazon, etc, have appropriated it, has been quite distorted, especially in mass products, independent of paid or not.
For a normal user it is irrelevant whether they can download the source code or not, if for 99,9% of them it is the same as an old Chinese document. In other words, freedom basically depends on other factors, starting with the conditions of use, a strong community and the company’s ethics regarding the user.
You probably know from other posts of mine that I use Vivaldi as the main browser, it’s distributed as freeware, because it’s not entirely OpenSource, the UI scripts are Vivaldi’s proprietary, but it’s not like Chrome, where only the Chromium part is OpenSource and the rest closed source no auditable, in Vivaldi 100% of the script is auditable and the proprietary part can be modified by the user, in the community they even teach how (although of course at their own risk), but only for personal use, Google and others cannot fork it for their own browsers. I think it is a reasonable measure to survive for a small cooperative in a market saturated with Chromiums, which are also used by the largest in this market (Google and M$), nothing to do with freedom It is at this point that the OpenSource designation becomes quite relative and irrelevant, in a market of over 100 browser forks and another 70 already discontinued, obsolete or abandoned projects. That is to say, in a software market saturated with one type of product, being OpenSource, this meaning now only acquires a purely academic status, nothing to do with freedom. Les in a market stagnant with only three engines since 20 years. Same with the search engines, the best most stables privacy focused are almost proprietary services (Startpage, DDG, Qwant, Andi, Lilo and a lot of others), well, there are also OpenSource engines, like SearX instances (Metasearch) or Whoogle (Google Engine), but there are teh need to use public instances if you don’t have a own server and the results are very deficient, mostly te image search don’t work well.
But, my point was OSI was NEVER about freedom or anything other than source code. Free Software is the political of the two VERY different movements. You could argue that Free Software (not gratis, freeware or whatever else you bring up - yuck!) has become irrelevant - but not to me :)
I understand, but what I mean is that in some products with more than 100 forks, it becomes somewhat irrelevant if you have the source or not, independent of this, as I mencioned before, in the case of the freeware browser Vivaldi, offers political more freedom for the user as some so called FOSS browser, forked and controled by Google and others.
I mean, that the philosophy and meaning of FOSS in recent years, since the big monopolies, such as Google, M$, Facebook, Amazon, etc, have appropriated it, has been quite distorted, especially in mass products, independent of paid or not. For a normal user it is irrelevant whether they can download the source code or not, if for 99,9% of them it is the same as an old Chinese document. In other words, freedom basically depends on other factors, starting with the conditions of use, a strong community and the company’s ethics regarding the user.