Linux

8055 readers

59 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
No NSFW adult content
Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

SDesk OS, and frowned on open sourced? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently spent some time browsing my favorite website, Distrowatch.com, where they provide weekly news updates on the latest developments in the world of Linux distributions. This week, I noticed that a new distro had been added to their list: SDesk. Given its intriguing name, I decided to take a closer look and discovered that it utilizes a programming language called 'Blue'.

What caught my attention was that to use this Blue programming language, one must pay $131! As someone who values open-source principles, I found this surprising, especially since many Linux distributions are built on the idea of free and open collaboration.

Other websites also features links to a previous GitHub page for Blue, which was removed. Without knowing the original license used by that project, it's unclear whether using paid-for programming language in an open-source operating system would be legally acceptable. As I'm not a lawyer nor an expert online, I'd love to hear from anyone who might have insight into this matter.

To me, it seems counterintuitive for a Linux distro to incorporate proprietary programming tools that require payment to edit or modify code. This goes against the fundamental nature of open-source collaboration, where code is freely shared and repurposed. It's an interesting development, to say the least what are your thoughts?

dead-github link https://github.com/SteveStudios/Blue

--edit also when finding the link duck duck go said it was GPL V3

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I don’t have any problem with an open source tool using a proprietary language or build tool, but I certainly would never contribute to it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonFreeTools

In the old days proprietary compilers was the norm. If "blue" is of value an open source equivalent will be made eventually. But looking at the blue examples and sdesk repo I doubt it.

Going just by the examples, Blue itself seems more an incomplete templating/code generation layer for getting some syntax sugar than anything else. Like you write Blue targeting C, write super high level constructs in Blue, then include C headers and snippets of C code for all the stuff you can't write in Blue, and finally transpile Blue into C which is then compiled conventionally.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So that's 131$, for what extremely likely is a rebranded popular distribution, with what very likely is a rebrand of Firefox

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Thats the intreasting thing i never could find what the browser is based on! Im assuming firefox or chromium.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I like how the "wiki" on their website is just a bunch of uneditable premade articles so pretty much the exact opposite of a real wiki (also the articles are terrible, the "introduction to linux" looks like a perfect way to make someone give up on evem trying linux)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

A lot of websites do not know what wiki is supposed to be.

One Czech search engine has a wiki page which is actually just a list of repeatedly searched things, and it does include a lot of wild stuff.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Aside from the fact it's paid product, it seems to me they're trying so hard to reinvent the wheel.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago

Stritcly speaking if you buy it and it comes with sources under the GPL then that is perfectly okay. The principle of freedom software isn't that everything is free of charge, but rather that when you obtain software you should be free to access its source and customize it for your needs and share those modifications with other people.

That does make it hard for people to really have to pay for it, but it's not like people don't pirate proprietary software anyway. The presumption is if you're honest and a good person you will pay the other for the software that you like and want to keep using.

It's also not violating the GPL by having proprietary apps alongside GPL ones bundled together. SteamOS for example, comes with Steam and other proprietary Valve stuff.

But I would definitely expect it to not be popular and for most of the open-source and Linux communities to want nothing of it (paying for a programming language, what is this, 1995 when we pay for Delphi?).