And I wasn't aware of the Elementary thing with Flatpak! Admittedly I hadn't really thought of it in that way, I was thinking something more akin to F-droid where there are a couple of extra repos you can add which have applications not on the main one due to slightly looser requirements. But making it specifically for apps for that ecosystem in particular makes a lot of sense.
Not officially but people have managed to reverse engineer it before in order to host their own - https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/lol-an-open-source-snap-server-implementation/27109
Whilst I do get the sentiment (and in no way do I support Canonical in keeping it proprietary), how likely is it that alternative Snap repos are going to show up if they did make it possible? Even with Flatpak where it is encouraged and documented I don't think I've heard of anyone setting up a Flathub alternative of any significance.
(except snap, but they seem too Ubuntu specific).
For what it is worth you can install Snap on most distros. https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd
From the conversation it seems to be a similar situation to the project I'm with is in. The flatpak is essentially community maintained rather than being directly supported by the team. To become verified it needs to be done so by a representative of the maintainers of the software. To be verified it doesn't have to have a team member involved in it but this is a requirement Inkscape seem to have imposed.
For us we just aren't in a position to want to support it officially just yet, we have some major upgrades coming to our underlying tech stack that will introduce a whole bunch of stuff that will allow various XDG portals etc. to work properly with the Flatpak sandboxing model. To support it now would involve tons of workarounds which would need to be removed later.
Yeah this has been our (well, my) statement on requests to put out ARM binaries for Pulsar. Typically we only put binaries out for systems we actually have within the team so we can test on real hardware and replicate issues. I would be hesitant to put out Windows ARM builds when, as far as I know, we don't have such a device. If there was a sudden clamouring for it then we could maybe purchase a device out of the funds pot.
The reason I was asking more about if it was to do with developer licences is that we have already dealt with differences between x86 and ARM macOS builds because the former seems to happily run unsigned apps after a few clicks, where the latter makes you run commands in the terminal - not a great user experience.
That is why I was wondering if the ARM builds for Windows required signing else they would just refuse to install on consumer ARM systems at all. The reason we don't sign at the moment is just because of the exorbitant cost of the certificates - something we would have to re-evaluate if signing became a requirement.
I can't say I'm one who shares that sentiment seeing as the only two projects I'm involved with happen to be Electron based (by chance rather than intention). Hell, one of them is Pulsar which is a continuation of Atom which literally invented Electron.
Is that a developer licence thing? I know GitHub recently announced Windows Arm runners that would be available to non-teams/enterprise tiers later this year.
Electron apps using older versions that don't support the 16k page size are probably the biggest offenders
Never really had much of my Grandma's food other than her Christmas fruit cakes. My Mum would only ever cook out of necessity and never anything fancy. It was my dad that did all the nice cooking in my house.
The moment you exclude any group or persons from your licence, it is, by definition, no longer open source.
Of course that doesn't sit well with some people and there are some initiatives to try to account for that, for example the Hippocratic License that allows you to customise your licence to specifically exclude groups that might use your software to cause harm or the Do No Harm license with similar goals.
Honestly, I find it hard to object to the idea. Some might argue it is a slippery slope away from the ideals of software freedom (as has been the case with some of the contraversial licenses recently like BSL and Hashicorp. I'm not a hardline idealist in the same way and if these more restrictive licenses that restrict some freedoms still produce software that might otherwise not exist then I'm happy they are around.
Would I use one? Probably not, for me, whilst I like the idea, I think the controversy generated by using a non-standard licence would become its defining feature and would put off a lot of people from contributing to the project.
There is a difference between censorship and the right to not have to listen to somebody. Being banned from having a platform to speak from could count as censorship (for example being banned from Reddit). However with Lemmy those on lemmygrad are free to say whatever they want, the difference is that everyone else is just as free to not have to listen. The idea of the Lemmy instances is that they have the ability to curate content - an instance catering to an LGBT community is not going to want to have to listen to right wing evangelicals and you join up on that knowledge. If you want to have the option to hear every single voice then join an instance with that mindset or just host your own.