The repo alone has 114 contributors, and that’s assuming no one copied code from any other project. It’s not that small.

One thing I’m missing in all this, did the dude change the license from GPL without the other contributors express permission? That on itself would be a massive violation of the GPL

That’s why decent rulers have a 0 and a margin:

Your rulers start at 1? That sounds annoying.

For desktop you probably can use something like https://github.com/TCB13/LoFloccus/ to save the bookmarks to a file in Synchthing. (Disclaimer: I haven’t tried this myself)

One thing is allowing the other is actively collecting and processing the data.

Also no. But 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

You are speaking like there are only two alternatives and none of them involves following the law.

Firefox creates a report based on what the website asks, but does not give the result to the website. Instead, Firefox encrypts the report and anonymously submits it using the Distributed Aggregation Protocol (DAP) to an “aggregation service”.

Mozilla can’t send user data to an “aggregation service” without explicit consent, no matter how much propaganda they use to explain it.

Why is Mozilla coming from the position that what advertisers want is reasonable or acceptable in any shape or form? The advertisement industry existed for centuries without the ability to spy on people and they were doing just fine.

Edit: this being opt-out instead of opt-in also violates the GDPR.

Before that don’t forget to voluntary submit a summary report of your activity to the NSA.

Ah yes, the reasonable solution to deal with someone cosplaying as a private Stasi is to voluntarily submit a report of your activities /s

The middle ground is not always a reasonable position.

No, GPL in particular demands the copyright notices are preserved.

So if I want to improve their software I need to pay them. Got it.

One way of making software more fair is by allowing developers to profit. Many companies today invest resources into taking an existing project and copying the ongoing work of the project creators; afterwards, creating and maintaining a hosted version using their code. In a fair circumstance, should they benefit from using the software, they could add certain features, fix bugs and support the community of users enjoying the product. In many cases they do, but fair-code ensures that this can happen by bringing businesses to the negotiation table when it comes to commercializing software.

This is bullshit when only a set of developers are allowed to profit. Every single project with a non-commercial license I know has an exception for the company that owns the repo. At that point external contributions are not open or fair anything, it’s a company stealing labour.

Either licenses are symmetrical or they are inherently unfair, and calling it Fair is doublespeak.

So a single entity is allowed to commercialize external contributions without any kind of reciprocity. Somehow it sounds worse to me than Shared Source.

If you are worried about leeches just use AGPL and call it a day.

That makes it source-available (like Microsoft Windows which is available under Shared Source) not open source.

That version/feature table 😵‍💫

You have no idea. I once did an open source library that became somewhat popular and shit like that made me give it away to a consulting company that will happily attach a quote to the bullshit requests.

As in my case it was a library I also got the university students demanding I do their homework for them, which is another delightful group.

When your entire security model consists of obfuscation and sticking your head in the sand, sweeping the vulnerabilities under the proverbial rug is the obvious course of action.

While I personally don’t oppose licenses that forbid commercial usage, this is not open source.