If your hardware ain’t working maybe there’s barrier to devs working on it caused by the designer/manufacture. Or we have not paid them enough for it to be worth their time?

Draw.io says it will use Apache but “with an extra line forbidding usage (…)”. It is not the normal Apache license. The extra line is a big difference in principle.

I hate scamming people but I think that should be fixed in another way.

It seems “open source” means different things for different people.

If you could see the code but were not allowed to redistribute it then I’d call it “source-available”… but you can redistribute the code, in this unusual case.

Forbidding reselling to any degree makes it “non-free” (as in freedom), which is the important part. The term “open source” was created to speak about “free software” without the moral or political aspects of user freedom.

Crazy to see the thread of people using “open source” differently. The term “open source” may have successed in replacing the older term “free software” (in popularity) but apparently it can also fail to be clear. “Open” can mean various degrees of openess, or lack thereof in this case.

It’s free as in free food but adding an extra line to restrict how it can be used, or with who, makes it non-free software (free as in freedom).

I beseech you god of Irony, make it so Amazon workers can vote him out of office.

We have examples of words being used to negatively identity specific minorities being purposely used by members of the minority to change public opinion.

I see no reason it couldn’t happen the other way around: “to poison the word” once used by minorities to change public opinion.

I agree and did that for the word “homophobia”. Saying it lead to a common response “I’m not afraid” but “having a phobia” wasn’t the subject matter (instead I say “aversion to homosexuality”, though I don’t have that conversation now since leaving Facebook/YouTube years ago).

When something really matters all we have is conversation, or violence. Words do not actually have innate definitions - they have usages that vary between individuals and between peoples over time. If we can understand what the person we’re talking to means then maybe we can come to understand each other.

astonishingly thin skin

Could be that, but remember that all skin can be damaged. If you’ve been badly burned then maybe it’s best to keep the environment sterile. “Focus on the engine and not politics” can be the conclusion of people with merely a simple goal of a good game engine but suppose that it can also be argued for with a goal of harming minorities by silencing them.

I have not used Ubuntu enough to say I have a bad experience with it. I know of Snap being effectively a proprietary store (a dumb feature) and Canonical has a bad reputation for being like the Microsoft of GNU+Linux.

Linux Mint offers the pros of Ubuntu but with the cons of like-Microsoft decision removed, why would I consider Ubuntu?

CLA default has ground looking like this (from dwarf wiki):

I like to check an option that makes grass/dirt/sand look like dots. This is an old embark from pre-graphics update days (animals include cats, dogs, turkeys, a horse, wildebeest and an alpaca):

I’m not so sure it’s actually okay for manufactures to say using aftermarket parts voids the warranty - they need to prove it’s actually your fault the device is broken (America’s Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act). If you’ve seen those little stickers over screws that say “warranty void if removed” - those are actually illegal (in America).

You focus on an incompetent grandson hypothetical but it’s not as if the 1st party repair is immune from hiring people who can make negligent mistakes, or even take malicious acts. If it’s difficult to replace a seal on a mask then perhaps it’s a CRAP design.

Companies will preach safety when lobbying against right to repair but when a mask is forced to be recalled for sound/vibration dampening material entering people’s lung they will kick and scream.

Safety is not my main goal, it is the freedom to do what you want with what you paid for.

The FDA found there isn’t evidence that 3rd party repair is any less safe than 1st party repair.

If one part needs to be replaced and the company who owns the patients/copyright tells the manufacturer to not sell it to others then the patient cost is needlessly a whole new machine. How many lives would be saved by lowering cost of getting medical equipment working?

1. A person doesn’t need to study medicine or own surgical equipment to get their body repaired. Same logic applies for the repairing of their medical devices. Right to repair does mean you have to personally repair it.

2+3. I don’t think that’s a problem. Presumably they’re already in contact with others to share information. Do that but as part of a larger, more open community.

When a defibrillator implant incorrectly shocks a pregnant women as an edge case she has to take meds to slow her heart so it doesn’t shock her. Doctors never think of the software running on it, and can’t get the code because it’s proprietary. People would be able to fix it, perhaps without even removing it, but can’t because business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=easb_6LCFDI

Thanks for the history and technical explanation. I didn’t mean to imply that was the origin (for computing) and was only talking about a specific usage of the word.

I think most people say it to refer to manufacture imposed limits but I wanted to promote a broader usage. That using proprietary software is like being in a jail because your software freedoms are denied.

In the medical field when a device can only be repaired by the manufacturer then you can expect long wait times, bad repair jobs and having your own equipment sent in for repair destroyed for “safety”.

We let people repair their own car’s brake pads… we shouldn’t give up ownership rights for a unwarranted claim to safety. If something is potentially dangerous then making it more difficult to repair is a bad idea.

The manufacture should have zero say if their product gets repaired or not. The only person who can give permission to repair it is the owner. It should be illegal to implement tying to lockout parts being used as a replacement. Right to repair

They call it jailbreak because this is an issue of freedom: software freedom