There shouldn’t be the need to clear a name, because you shouldn’t be smearing someone’s name who’s giving away their work. It’s fine to distrust it, but then just don’t use the software.

Probably not what you’re after, but if it’s really just about PDFs, note that Firefox has an excellent PDF reader built-in. Oh, but I guess a browser extension can’t access that?

I’m not sure which button you’re talking about, but if it’s the one in the sidebar, click “Customise sidebar”, and then uncheck “AI chatbot”.

By now you would’ve expected someone to have pointed out what code is actually collecting that data that’s supposedly sold.

They’re saying they want something like Synaptic (mostly for its “multi-select”, apparently, though I’m not sure what that means?), but have it support AppImages, Flatpaks, Snaps, etc., instead of just Debs like Synaptic does.

Can I just say: hats off to the bug archaeology you’ve done there :)

Heh yes, but for the purposes of this post I wanted to focus on why it wasn’t just another distro recommendation, but one tailored specific to their use case :) (I don’t even use Kinoite myself, so it’s extra genuine.)

If you do a reinstall, I’d recommend going with a Kinoite install. It’s like regular Fedora KDE, except that it avoids this risk of traces of past experiments everywhere.

thelibre.news is woefully underappreciated.

Ha, well, if my single-digit-downloads (all by me) NPM module is influential enough to set precedent, then I’d consider that a success.

Yeah I get that point, and so my point is that if the use case is important enough that they’d be able to justify allocating that personnel, I use the AGPL to give them that nudge. When it’s just some non-critical component, then I’ll just slap an MIT on it and be done with it.

My rule-of-thumb is: is the licence going to make things better for users? In other words, I try to predict whether a company would just not use my AGPL-licensed code, or would potentially contribute back. If they wouldn’t, I don’t really care and rather my code at least gets used to build something presumably useful.

No worries! Thanks for updating your comment :)

If you think you know what happened or the context, you probably don’t. Please don’t make assumptions. Thank you.

https://vt.social/@lina/114184253273866198

Someone might want to check that, because IIRC it was someone else’s alter ego.

No worries, thanks again!

Which Mozilla projects started out as free and are now non-free, i.e. no longer under an open source (or even viral open source) licence?

It was collapsed for me at first, and buried under a lot of other comments, but a workaround is mentioned here. Unfortunately, that didn’t seem to work for me, but deleting the Flatpak and deleting all associated data, and then reinstalling it, I think did the trick.

Although it does now show this warning, which doesn’t sound great.

Edit: actually, I think that was the reason I concluded the first workaround didn’t work, but looking at that URL, this might just have been introduced in Firefox 128, which is newer than the old version of Tor was based on. So it looks like both worked.

So… How do we do we’re running an outdated version, and what is the fix that requires manual intervention?

It’s a shame they changed the name.