Sorry for the late reply.

The royalty free license tries to get as close to MIT as we can while limiting the use on embedded…

I think I understand that perspective. But please also understand the other perspective: how a user has the right to see it, when they are not connected to the company.

If you are such a user, then you need open-source software for your daily life. And you use it. At the same time, you see:

• IntelliJ Idea taking its MIT-licensed Rust plugin and deciding that it’ll be more profitable for them to close-source it, so you won’t have it anymore. And of course nobody forked the plugin. The idea is clear, the company wants you to use Rust Rover.

• Apple’s OS, being historically based on 4.4BSD-Lite2 and FreeBSD, and being the second-highest valued company in the world (!), is happily living with all and any of that MIT-licensed code, while BSD itself is stagnating. It’s not Apple’s fault of course, Apple is not a bad actor here. It’s just not very smart or future-proof to spend a lot of time binding yourself to a system that can easily turn into stagnation.

On the other hand, GPL-licensed projects protect themselves very well. When things don’t go well, you see successful foks (such as Forjeo, LibreOffice, MariaDB). When things go well, you just see it thriving (such as Linux, most userland software).

We try to make all of the terms as clear as possible. We rewrote the Slint licensing page several times,…

To answer this and to conclude, for me personally, it’s not about how to write something. It’s about what is written. The fact that Slint aims to be good for a for-profit company, does not and will never nullify that MIT contributions are re-licensed as GPL or proprietary. It will come up, and it’s fair when it does… as I see it, at least.

That’s very odd… What percentage of the company now belongs to Australia?

I think both 0 screen time and infinite screen time are bad extremes for kids. Infinite probably doesn’t need explaining, zero is also not very effective because you’re likely gonna alienate the kid and they’ll be playing at friend’s houses anyway.

Personally I think the best approach is to try be a guide for your kid, not a policeman. Soon enough they’ll be on their own anyway, and the reasons will stick better than the rules.

Yeah, I didn’t think about it, but your comment makes sense to me. I don’t know what’s best really.

Like in a discussion here on Lemmy that was just a little while ago, I think phone usage during school hours would be a far healthier and effective alternative. I’ve seen how it works in practice in 2 different countries, one with mobile phones allowed and one disallowed. And the complete ban on phone usage during school hours really goes easy and works well (as I see implemented in Dutch schools at least - you just hand over your device in the morning until end of school).

I don’t currently live in Australia so I may be ill informed, but the arguments sound made-up to me.

Hollonds said she’s worried the ban will adversely affect children who already struggle to find connection and belonging at school, citing LGBTQIA+ children, those with mental health problems, neurodiverse children, children with disabilities and complex needs, and children who live in regional and rural areas.

Doesn’t that sound exactly like the “can somebody please think about the children” argument? I mean, how will social media help those with mental health problems? There’s a ton of studies that social media only makes it worse, and by far.

Or in other words, don’t have hopes that some magical “social media” is gonna help the children. Do it, yourself. Support minorities around you. Be more welcoming of other genders/preferences. Talk to other people. That kind of stuff…
It’s true that some gaps will need to be filled though, with kids around you getting less zombified by social media and instead asking you questions maybe, or playing games, or making friends IRL.

I’ve found that the other replies don’t really express my personal take on this, so I’ll go ahead and write mine down.

First of all, and it’s important, people’s take on such topics is heavily dependent on the country they live in. It’s legitimately hard to imagine why you would want to break government rules hard and be a good person if you live somewhere in Norway. And it’s legitimately hard to imagine a world where you really trust your government and think that the current levels of censorship is actually good if you live in a dictatorship country.

With this in mind, a comfortable and universal level of censorship simply doesn’t exist.

I think the lack of Tor support is valid criticism if you’re in a dictatorship. Of course, DNS-based solutions are not good-enough for you. I hope you’ll find something that solves your problems. Unfortunately a simple Lemmy instance is not a solution for you.

Generally, if I’d advise something, I’d suggest to look at what the project actually aims to do, not at what you think it should be doing. E.g. visit https://join-lemmy.org/ and there it says:

Lemmy is a selfhosted social link aggregation and discussion platform. It is completely free and open, and not controlled by any company. This means that there is no advertising, tracking,…

Well, does it sound like a solution made for people in heavily censored environments? To me – not. If you want to present your case and incentivize the Lemmy devs to ADD another perspective or direction to the software that they’re spending time developing, prepare your case and argumentation well. Explain your situation (e.g. “I’ll be hung if I speak freely where I live”, or more relevant, “my country heavily DNS-censors 90% of the good existing Lemmy instances, I’m deprived of good information you have circling here”), propose some solutions or offer help. I don’t know really. It’s up to you. Good luck with your seach

I think/hope it was a joke.

But none that I’d like or find healthy, to be honest.

I guess that’s a good first step… towards making gambling undesired and unapproachable overall, as much as possible.

(I’m assuming here that “simply” making it illegal overnight might not work and may only make it more attractive to some people. So the correct approach is to really make it less attractive.)

UPD: I’ve misread at first - apologies. Nevermind about commercial or not, this is of no interest to me. (See above.)

EDIT: I’ve misread at first - apologies. Nevermind.

To be fair, 1. Yes, it exists. 2. Please direct your anger towards the source of the problem. That being, I believe, neglect and under-funding. If these factors are at fault, then they also should get under scrutiny.

BTW, on a funny note, I’ve seen a video how in the Netherlands they’ve put a whole tunnel under a highway in a single night. We need dat type of skill - and yes, money - put to rail maintenance too!.

I confirm, I’ve personally edited a post 3 times over until a day later I’ve understood what’s exactly happening: https://lemmy.ml/post/37434570

EDIT: I’ve misread at first. Commercial or not doesn’t matter to me. I’m only interested here in whether it’s open-source as a project. That is, if it’s a sustainable open-source project.

Hey, first of all, thanks for for sharing and I do appreciate both Slint existing and you being able to do software that’s usable by both businesses and, to some extend, open-source projects! (The latter depends on whether you consider contributing to the underlying libraries as a requirement for development, and if you’re then fine with contributing with these MIT/non-MIT specifics.)

When you contribute to any MIT license project you are in the same situation

I would disagree here. If you’re speaking about any MIT project, then many of them would be simply MIT. You contribute like MIT and you can use the code as MIT. Slint is not licensed as MIT-0 though. It’s licensed as written here: https://github.com/slint-ui/slint?tab=readme-ov-file#license, and only your contributions are taken as MIT. This does set Slint apart.

It’s a fair model though, if the developers are sufficiently aware of the deal. And it’s a very sensible business model. I have nothing against it, and I only wish to make the exact deal more explicit. As you see around, I don’t think it’s 100% clear from the first glance.

Definitely! And as you said, you can use it with closed source projects as well (or GPLv3), and I have nothing against businesses doing UI toolkits as well. Have you read my last paragraph though?

Do you know if RustDesk is a fully open-source project? I don’t get their pricing plan idea for Self-Hosted. It also doesn’t seem to be packaged for Debian or Ubuntu. Is it really, fully, developed in the open as an open-source project?

Personally, I never open anything from the “X” platform. Using a platform that belongs to a person that makes Nazi salutes is unacceptable for my standards.

Fair enough, thanks for the correction. I should be more careful with my wording. I think it’s “open-source”, but not an “open-source project”. In a sense that, they release the source code under a restrictive license, but they themselves will not have it this way and can stop publishing the code any time they want.

So they publish the source code under an OSI-approved license as you say, but they don’t develop it in an open manner and I think it’s fair to say that they are not an open-source project.

Something to keep in mind is that Slint is not an Open-Source project. If you’ll want to improve Slint you’ll have to give away your contribution under the MIT No Attribution License (MIT-0) license, yet if and when you’ll want to use Slint, you can get it as a paid or GPLv3 license.

In my mind this is more of a proprietary project closed development model (EDIT for correctness, see comment below). The development model is not around freedom and equal rights, with the project being able to stop giving you access under any open-source license whatsoever, all while continuing to use your contributions.

It’s not unfair. In fact, it might be a great project. Just not open-source as a project overall, if you care about this.

I don’t really know, but I support you in your search!