The point of GPL licenses is to protect the user of the software, not the developer. If you want "protection" as a developer, use MIT (disclaimer of warranty). GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system. If you don't care about your users' software freedom in the first place, then (L)GPL is the wrong choice.

A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you want (or cease to do something you dislike). Tinkering with software may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree software.

With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.

With the other two freedoms, any group of users can together exercise collective control over the program.

Users' control over the program requires four essential freedoms.

freedom to study the program's “source code,” and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish

freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose.

Either way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power that no one should have.

When a program respects users' freedom and community, we call it “free software.”

computer users' freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather than vice versa

I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives.

You can also go to the Ruby OAuth Client Library to download the source code and run: 1gem build intuit-oauth.gemspec to build your own gem if you want to modify certain functions in the library.

The intent of this specification and related tools is to expand the reach of development containers, allow the usage of containers by themselves or different orchestration technologies, and allow any tool to manage and create them.

and they've been focused on using Docker or Docker Compose

StopTheMadness is a web browser extension that stops web sites from making your browser harder to use

Perhaps not a good idea, in general, to use a random PPA for such sprawling software as a browser. Auditability near zero even if it is open source.

that involves looking up where to find Guix's source code, `git clone`ing it, finding the Guix revision I'm currently on with `guix describe` so I can check out the same one for consistency's sake, `make`ing it, `guix environment guix`, using `pre-inst-env`, etc

If JavaScript were detached from the client and server platforms, the pressure of being a monoculture would be lifted — the next iteration of the JavaScript language or run-time would no longer have to please every developer in the world, but instead could focus on pleasing a much smaller audience of developers who love JavaScript and thrive with it, while enabling others to move to alternative languages or run-times.

A free cultural work (free content) is, according to the definition of Free Cultural Works, one that has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to:

While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.

This is a store we can’t audit, which contains software nobody can patch. If we can’t fix or modify software, open-source or not, it provides the same limitations as proprietary software.

We took a stance on an issue. We informed and documented. We made it easy for you to understand the problem and also to take action if you disagreed.

It appears that Canonical is continuing it's vice grip of unliateral, maybe dictatorial control on the development of Snap to the benefit of Ubuntu, but to the detriment of groups like Linuxmint, and all other non-Ubuntu based Linux distributions - like CentOS/Redhat, Suse/openSuSe, Solus, Arch/Manjaro, PCLinuxOS, etc, that are pushing Flatpak as a truly cross-distro application solution that works equally well and non-problematic for all. .

As was mentioned in the comments above, the material design spec for buttons specifies that the text should be uppercase, but you can easily override its CSS property: paper-button { text-transform: none; }

enables passive event listeners by default for some events (see list below). It basically will set { passive: true } automatically every time you declare a new event listener.

@use "@material/theme" with (  $primary: #FEDBD0,  $on-primary: #442C2E);

You could totally just write your own name and not use the name in package.json, this template is made so the users wouldn't need to think about the UMD build.

Portable... your .name address works with any email or web service. With our automatic forwarding service on third level domains, you can change email accounts, your ISP, or your job without changing your email address. Any mail sent to your .name address arrives in any email box you choose.

Just coming here to voice my agreement that these warnings are annoying and exist in other libraries as well. For me this happened with svelma. I didn't write the library code, so I don't have complete control over it even though I agree there is an argument to be had around whether I should be notified anyway. In either case, these warnings should be easily disabled since libraries don't always get updated over night.

Maybe it's also a bug because every warning should be ignorable? Not sure.

I would like the compiler to add a property like canIgnore: false to the warning, if the warning cannot be disabled.

To silence circular dependencies warnings for let's say moment library use: // rollup.config.js import path from 'path' const onwarn = warning => { // Silence circular dependency warning for moment package if ( warning.code === 'CIRCULAR_DEPENDENCY' && !warning.importer.indexOf(path.normalize('node_modules/moment/src/lib/')) ) { return } console.warn(`(!) ${warning.message}`) }

The other pressing issue is that users have lost the right to run private extensions in the release version of Firefox, without needing to hand over their source code to Mozilla.

What I don't like is how they've killed so many useful extensions without any sane method of overriding their decisions.

I know, you don't trust Mozilla but do you also not trust the developer? I absolutely do! That is the whole point of this discussion. Mozilla doesn't trust S3.Translator or jeremiahlee but I do. They blocked page-translator for pedantic reasons. Which is why I want the option to override their decision to specifically install few extensions that I'm okay with.

honestly it looks a lot more like typical tech company anti-freedomism

What's terrible and dangerous is a faceless organization deciding to arbitrarily and silently control what I can and can not do with my browser on my computer. Orwell is screaming in his grave right now. This is no different than Mozilla deciding I don't get to visit Tulsi Gabbard's webpage because they don't like her politics, or I don't get to order car parts off amazon because they don't like hyundai, or I don't get to download mods for minecraft, or talk to certain people on facebook.

They don't have to host the extension on their website, but it's absolutely and utterly unacceptable for them to interfere with me choosing to come to github and install it.

It's no less beyond the pale than when apple actively sabotaged people's devices to force them to upgrade or amazon deleted people's already bought and downloaded ebooks. It's completely unacceptable and frankly should fall under consumer rights laws.

The iPhone restricts users to operate inside a sandbox. But when you buy an iPhone, you own the iPhone hardware. Android for the iPhone gives you the freedom to run a different operating system on that hardware.

users “should be able to use [the iPhone] hardware the way they want” rather than dealing with sandboxes that “create limits and boundaries” on the devices that they own

Our goal is to make the internet a more free (libre) place and open it for everyone