106
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
106 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
6761 readers
315 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I love this.
This is the problem with everyone going opensource to get away from big tech. No one wants to put in the work to help open source projects, and can't even be fucked to attribute the original code. It's all take, take, take, and the shareholders love it because they only thing they heard was "free."
Nextcloud tried to work with OnlyOffice, but they refused and don't look at any PR's
So Nextcloud forked it and created EuroOffice. Now OnlyOffice is pissed
Sure, I get the fork, and that's the beauty of open source. However, attribution should be standard. You can't just fork and claim it as your own. It's still based on code someone else wrote.
Attribution is required by the (A)GPL and is standard in forks. What is not required is preserving branding and logos.
For a good reason, those are often trademarks. Had they included them Only office would sue them for trademark violations.
It's a dishonest attempt to override the FOSS license.
FSS are the creators or AGPL3, aka. The liscence OnlyOffice is released under.
FSS made a statement/blog-post to say the restrictions OnlyOffice added are illegitimate and not in accordance with AGPL3.
OO isn't just asking for attribution they are asking two things.
Do you see the problem, it's not just attribution
It's pretty funny on its face ("If you want to use a different logo, then use different code too"), but I have the feeling that this schism is just going to make open-source office projects worse in general.
FSF has already called out OnlyOffice (just without naming them) and says GPL doesn't allow it.
Additionally you're not allowed to claim you're using GPL if you add impermissible additions to the license
I agree with the FSF; I'm just a little worried Onlyoffice will seek some vindictive retaliation. I don't know what that'll look like, but I certainly wouldn't have predicted this response from them either.
Then you call FSF as an expert witness and watch them tear them apart
That's not what this is at all.
Onlyoffice is Russian