Before they even explain what the project is or what it does, you're immediately greeted with a "Legal note". It literally takes up the whole screen. It feels like a "WARNING. Private Property. NO TRESPASSING. Violators will be prosecuted!" sign rather than an invitation to explore a supposedly "free and open-source" software project.
And then, of course, they add a "Contributors welcome!" section. Sure. They're happy to accept free work from the free and open-source software community, but the rights that community is supposed to get under the AGPL v3.0 license? Those rights are ignored, as per their own convenience.
But don't worry, they do mention the "open-source" nature of their project with a hint at the license at the end:
> ONLYOFFICE is distributed under the AGPL v3.0 license, ensuring transparency and commitment to the open-source community.
What a joke!
---
Just a note: I have no problem with a software developer deciding under what conditions to distribute their software to users. If users become aware of the software project, it is up to them to decide whether or not they agree to those conditions. Because of the benefits that free and open-source software offers users and developers, I believe strongly in free and open-source software. Here, however, "free" does not mean "free of charge", but rather "free" as in "freedom". While I won't applaud someone who doesn't redistribute their software as "free and open-source software", I also don't hold a grudge against them.
However, I have a problem with the fact that, on the one hand, software is marketed as "free and open-source" software (apparently because it sounds good) while, on the other hand, the rights of the "free and open-source" software community are disregarded, abused, and trampled upon in such a despicable manner!
If you scroll down to "Allow GitHub to use my data for AI model training" in GitHub settings, you can enable or disable it. However, what really gets me is how they pitch it like it’s some kind of user-facing feature:
Enabled = You will have access to the feature
Disabled = You won't have access to the feature
As if handing over your data for free is a perk. Kinda hilarious.
I occasionally read these articles and wanted to know what sources they use, besides websites like The Daily Caller, to back up their claims. I noticed this some time ago and remembered it. But it took me a while to find the article again. ;)
Just a note: the White House also uses archive.ph.
Search for “Americans are spending like never before: Retail sales are booming — up 5% over last year, far outpacing inflation — as Americans spend in record amounts.” [1]
Before they even explain what the project is or what it does, you're immediately greeted with a "Legal note". It literally takes up the whole screen. It feels like a "WARNING. Private Property. NO TRESPASSING. Violators will be prosecuted!" sign rather than an invitation to explore a supposedly "free and open-source" software project.
And then, of course, they add a "Contributors welcome!" section. Sure. They're happy to accept free work from the free and open-source software community, but the rights that community is supposed to get under the AGPL v3.0 license? Those rights are ignored, as per their own convenience.
But don't worry, they do mention the "open-source" nature of their project with a hint at the license at the end:
> ONLYOFFICE is distributed under the AGPL v3.0 license, ensuring transparency and commitment to the open-source community.
What a joke!
---
Just a note: I have no problem with a software developer deciding under what conditions to distribute their software to users. If users become aware of the software project, it is up to them to decide whether or not they agree to those conditions. Because of the benefits that free and open-source software offers users and developers, I believe strongly in free and open-source software. Here, however, "free" does not mean "free of charge", but rather "free" as in "freedom". While I won't applaud someone who doesn't redistribute their software as "free and open-source software", I also don't hold a grudge against them.
However, I have a problem with the fact that, on the one hand, software is marketed as "free and open-source" software (apparently because it sounds good) while, on the other hand, the rights of the "free and open-source" software community are disregarded, abused, and trampled upon in such a despicable manner!