All Proton Drive apps are now open source
https://slrpnk.net/post/13678862
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
It took me going to their GitHub to find out, but it’s GPL 3.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acockworkorange@mander.xyz
What does this mean practically
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
Well… The branded web apps could (they could add a proprietary shell around the GPL software, or evoke from scratch). But that seems difficult and unlikely.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from naught101@lemmy.world
Any new open source software is always a net positive.
But, there are a few small caveats (depending on how cynical/cautious you are):
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
They can’t do that actually. They can close the source, yes, but if they do they can’t then release the new closed-source version to the public.
From the GPL FAQ page:
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL. [Emboldened by me.]
Alternatively:
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
Does the license prohibit this? Definitely. Could they get away with it? Probably. Though I’m uncertain Proton would go that far. I mean, if they wanted to prevent forks, they wouldn’t have released the source, let alone with the GPL3 license, which requires the right to make modifications (as that’s one of the Four Freedoms).
Technically true, I suppose, though again why they would do that is beyond me. If they didn’t want forks, they likely wouldn’t have allowed forks.
Again, this is all assuming I’m understanding the GPL FAQ page correctly. If I’m wrong, I would welcome someone smarter than me to correct me. :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
The way I understand it is that they can relicense it and then publish it if they want, but the GPL would still fully apply to the previous versions.
The first question you cited seems to refer to any different organisation/individual making changes to the source code. And the second seems to refer to revoking the GPL for an already released version, which they would of course not be allowed to do.
This would make sense as ownership of the copyright would supersede a license.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AwakenedAce@lemmy.blahaj.zone
“releasing the modified version to the public” would cover them re-closing the source and then subsequently releasing that newly closed source, so they can’t relicense it and then release the built version of the code.
At least not easily, this is where court history would likely need to be visited because the way it’s worded the interpretability of “modified” in this context would need to be examined.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
Not a lawyer but in the scenario where proton closed the source but kept offering the build, even if gpl3 still applies since they’re the only copyright holder (no contributions) it’d only give them grounds to sue themselves?
From gnu.org:
The GNU licenses are copyright licenses; free licenses in general are based on copyright. In most countries only the copyright holders are legally empowered to act against violations.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
Oh, yes but the DRM exemption clause means that you can backwards engineer the changes and continue releasing them under GPL
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
Oh that is a SHAME.
DuckStation is such a wonderful piece of software too. :(
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
IANAL, but AFAIK that’s incorrect. If you’re the only copyright holder, you can issue multiple licenses for your work. GPL doesn’t allow you to rescind previous issues, so anyone in possession of your GPL code can still modify and release it under the GPL freely. But it doesn’t prevent you from issuing your own work under a different license.
There isn’t usually much economic sense for most applications to do that because anyone can fork the project and distribute it for free. For Proton, since they still hold the server as closed source, they could simply introduce a breaking protocol change and all the forks would be useless.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acockworkorange@mander.xyz
I’d expect free software people to not have the funds to sue corporations. Are there any examples of these major lawsuits I can take a look at? I do remember a telecom company in France was fined quite a large sum but that was reported as a rare incident.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Quail4789@lemmy.ml
Any GPL violations would be reported to the Software Freedom Conservacy, who would go to court on the dev’s behalf.
There was a major lawsuit back in 2022 between the SFC and Vizio, and the SFC won.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
It’s pretty much not reversible and the code is free to use, modify, and distribute forever. And if you do modify it you also must make those changes open source.
Very good news
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bdonvr@thelemmy.club
gpl v3 you can do pretty much anything but you have to put it the same license but it has like drm protections and Anti-Tivoization and also has some patent protections people find this license too strict
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Mwa@lemm.ee
Its actually more restrictive, in a good way.
You can’t, for example, fork it, make changes, and sell that derivative software without releasing the source code
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from delirious_owl@discuss.online
yeah but drm is too strict for some people and anti tivozation this is why linux did not do gpl 3.0 or later
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Mwa@lemm.ee
really appreciate you reporting back, thanks for sharing!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from barkingspiders@infosec.pub
Why the but? GPL 3 is the correct license to use for open source projects to ensure they stay open and corps don’t freeload on them.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yogthos@lemmy.ml
English isn’t my first language. I share your opinion regarding the license. Which connector would you use instead of “but” to indicate that you succeeded in your efforts even though it was harder you thought it would be?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acockworkorange@mander.xyz
English is my only language, and yours looks fine to me. I thought it was pretty clear from the first comment that the “but” indicated success despite difficulties, and as you clarified that’s exactly what you meant.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from 0ops@lemm.ee
Looks like you’ve got the upvotes backing you. I’ll keep on using as is. Thank you!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acockworkorange@mander.xyz
Why not having a L2 maybe a L3? People from the US should feel like they’re missing out in our modern world!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
Ah gotcha, you could just omit but in this case and the sentence would have the intended meaning.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yogthos@lemmy.ml
“and”
If you study non violent communication, folks will say to avoid using “I agree with you, but”. Because as soon as you say " but ", people get defensive and stop listening to you.
Whenever possible, replace “but” with “and” if the sentence still has the same meaning
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from delirious_owl@discuss.online
This was not a case of “I agree with you, but…”, though. “But” is perfectly appropriate here to contrast between the first statement and the second.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pooberbee@lemmy.ml
AGPL would have been a bit better, especially for the server side
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from delirious_owl@discuss.online
agreed
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yogthos@lemmy.ml
This does not apply to the server. Only the client app is open source. The server is proprietary.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Matt@lemdro.id
Very nice, I do hope that means we’ll finally get a Linux version sometime soon lol
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lupec@lemm.ee
Feels like this would be a bigger win for them than a lot of other companies. The people interested in privacy focused alternative to the Google/Microsoft/Apple offerings probably have a lot of overlap with Linux users.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Toribor@corndog.social
I believe that rclone already has Proton Drive support.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lemmyvore@feddit.nl
It does, yeah. Still, having access to the official client too would be nice.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lupec@lemm.ee
So does it work reliably now?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Reverendender@sh.itjust.works
Did it not before? I’m not seeing any issues
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ryannathans@aussie.zone
Drive sucks on Android (in my opinion). Severely lacking features.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com
What features are missing? (Maybe ignorance is bliss)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
Atleastforme I’d like to have a directory watcher syncing updated/new files automatically similar to the camera syncing.
I’ll look for a custome solution (syncing it first to my raspberry pi and then to proton drive) once I have my new phone.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from skoell13@feddit.org
It’s okay for like the occasional individual file save. I tried a bulk transfer and wound up losing half my iCloud files. Also I frequently get errors when trying to save to there on iOS.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Reverendender@sh.itjust.works
Absolutely no issues on android with bulk transfers, moved around 10gb of files recently and imo worked better than other drives I’ve tested
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from greenacres3233@lemmy.dbzer0.com
When was this?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Reverendender@sh.itjust.works
Can’t remember the exact day, but around a week and a half ago
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from greenacres3233@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Ok mine was like 4 months ago, so it has probably improved
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Reverendender@sh.itjust.works
More copilot training data.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from CCMan1701A@startrek.website
Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t have a codeberg or similar that they host themselves.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from DmMacniel@feddit.org
How would that help? If you release something as GPL code, you cannot prevent it from being used to train a model, no matter where it’s hosted.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Tja@programming.dev
There’s a difference between handing something to someone and leaving it somewhere they happen to be able to take it from.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from null@slrpnk.net
Im personally waiting for a massive lawsuit, legally companies cannot train AI on GPL code (at least I don’t believe so)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
There’s nothing in GPL that would forbid it. Only distribution without code publication is forbidden.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Tja@programming.dev
If Al warned about that it would be legal, I don’t believe any AI requires GPL
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
mhm, and how would the distribution inside an LLM work? Are those code snippets CoPilot et al produce come with dedicated license sections?
And regarding how it would help selfhosting the code: it wouldn’t be on the GITHub servers owned by Microsoft, which owns/operates CoPilot. Its akin to feeding the LLM directly by pushing it to their servers.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from DmMacniel@feddit.org
Awesome! Cant wait for their wallet thing to become ready and i hope they have support for many types of coins… also i wish theyd make it so that proton drive work with joplin 😑
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bruhsoulz@lemmy.ml
they can only support one coin legally. for details check out the Opt Out podcasts’s episode about this topic
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
Can you give a summary of why that is?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from june@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I was listening to it a few weeks ago, but vaguely there are auditing companies in the Netherlands that need to verify companies above a certain size whether they are handling their money properly. As I understand it includes tax accounting.
These auditing companies don’t like cryptocurrencies. There are several of these that don’t agree to audit Proton even because they are accepting Bitcoin, but none of the remaining would accept it if they were also accepting a second cryptocurrency.
Now that I think of it, it might have actually been the reason they don’t accept Monero as a payment? In that case, the reason for Proton Wallet being bitcoin only has something to do with another wallet’s developers having been jailed recently for handling multiple cryptocurrencies.
I recommend you to listen to it though, if you understand english speech. There were interesting topics (and Opt Out generally has interesting episodes).
This episode is 54 minutes, audio only. You can find it here: buzzsprout.com/…/15505787-proton-wallet-w-andy-ye….
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
Wow, so cool. And Mobile Calendar source code is still unreleased, right?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JustMarkov@lemmy.ml
It would have only taken you two clicks to see if the source code of proton calendar for mobile devices is released or not.
spoiler: Yes the code for iOS and android is on GitHub.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from DmMacniel@feddit.org
Can you give a link, then? Because I can only find a web-ui source code.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JustMarkov@lemmy.ml
GitHub has a “clone” button, if you click on that you can get git links to download the code. The http-URL doesn’t require authentication.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini