I’d like to think that is so but some here will argue non-copyleft licenses are “more free”. Ime they don’t reply after I point out that’s the freedom to deny others freedom.

In that case the “orchestrate the pieces” part is copyrightable if it reaches a minimum threshold of creativity but the pieces themselves are still not copyrightable because a human still didn’t make them??

If votes determine if a post is constructive, and bots are the majority… 😬

Poisoning the well.

Companies make money using open source code and ignore the licenses which compel them to release their source code (due to ignorance, laziness or selfish gains). While AI generated code cannot be copyrighted then you cannot apply copyleft licenses to that code. Telling human-authored code from AI slop may be difficult or impossible - that could make it more difficult to enforce copyleft compliance in a lawsuit.

Are they lying about secure boot being a reason or can I go back to thinking SB is part of Microsoft’s EEE attack on software freedom?

Godot is yours to control. You, and others, can change the engine and share those changes.

Someone else controls what your copy of Unity does, and they want to get paid. They can alter the deal at any time. Spend year(s) investing while praying they do not alter the deal any further.

There are other considerations one can discuss (what do you want to make, user prior coding experince, what jobs want these days) but if you value your software freedom it’s an easy question answered by looking at the software license. MIT > Proprietary.

We don’t need the madman who thinks suffering is good to change their mind for sensible people to act, as medicine doesn’t need the madman who thinks always throwing up is healthy. We place expectations on others everyday: like when we walk past a stranger. Perfect agreement is not needed to have expectations, or demand better from those who benefit from others.

“Militant foss” reads like the old saying “militant atheist”…

Maybe you aught to take your own advice and not mention this again, otherwise you’ll hear opinions that conflict with your own.

Is that real or parody?

Given the bad incentives on parties from our a two party system then even Greens would eventually become bad (unless they managed to fix the voting system they just won on…).

If one limits their scope to the nutrients or taste of food on their plate then they wouldn’t consider the well-being of other conscious creatures. Only considering system requirements to complete an activity misses out the freedom of the user(s), apparently.

It is a given that humans suffer due to the unjust power that proprietary software gives devs over their user’s computing. Even the best dev does not the the willpower to always resist the temptation to use that power at the expense of the users. Many devs are oblivious they are doing anything wrong and many are malicious/anti-consumer.

There is also the impact it’s use and promotion has on others - money/feedback/promotion given to the non-free projects are boons not given to the freedom-respecting projects. I am better off when others start to move away from proprietary software.

I’m sure that’s correct. Richard Stallman would be a good example of that, sadly. I doubt anything as negative has been said in this thread, or site. Seems more like people feel attacked when free software advocates point out uncomfortable issues. Like how people get annoyed with vegans talking about animal cruelty (I eat meat, saying that to avoid theonejoke).

To continue the metaphor: a partner can have many alluring qualities (income, hobbies, looks) but what does that matter if the relationship is abusive? Leaving (and dating someone “worse”) can be more difficult that just staying in the relationship, but the priority should be clear.

If people choose not to use software that’s open source because of the way people talk on some thread… were they intellectually thinking about their own best interests? It’s like no longer enjoying a show because some fans did something cringe - anything popular enough will have weirdos (from someone’s perspective).

What’s it from?

You mean a morally “right” solution? 😇

2. Open source has high immunity to devs making changes at the expense of the user for their benefit because anti-features can be removed. Recommending another proprietary alternative here would be like saying they aught to leave an abusive partner but then recommend someone with the same red flags.

Plex is in control of their user’s computing in a way Jellyfin isn’t. You can remove anti-features from Jellyfin software and even redistribute it. So it’s much less likely they would do something like Plex and it even doesn’t matter if they did as you can find others to work on it in a way you want. Plex is proprietary software, Jellyfin is software freedom.

Did it download the original file or are there download options transcoded on the server?