151–160 of 281 posts
Moved on to Zotero and text/plain files for my notetaking and journaling needs ever since.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of the comments to this are angry and I can appreciate that. There is obviously some specific nuance to "open source" that individuals in this thread want to maintain and feel that the OSI has enshrined in stone as a definition that no one shall breach. However, I strongly support the kind of license (in principle) that this software is released under. Source code is available for anyone to inspect, modify for…
This isn’t bickering. These definitions have existed for literal decades. There are multiple models for making source code available, and people can choose what license they want. But this isn’t open source. This is source available, free (as in beer, kinda) license. You don’t have to pay, and you can see the source code. But, in my quick reading, I don’t think you can make modifications, distribute modifications, di…
> Any Association grants you (“Licensee”) a license to use, modify, and redistribute the Software, but only (a) for Non-Commercial Use, or (b) for Commercial Use in Allowed Networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, someone could just use that misleadingly too, just as with "open source". "Open Source" already doesn't cover these special licenses, instead, the "source available" is used. Any also acknowledges this actually - the license they are using is called the "Any Source Available License 1.0".
After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0]. The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1]. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/…
The FSF article directly follow with this, which contradicts your claim: "However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."
And the OSD also disagrees: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
Terms that can be summarized as "whose source code is available to the public" are called "source available", even by the FSF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t bickering. These definitions have existed for literal decades. There are multiple models for making source code available, and people can choose what license they want. But this isn’t open source. This is source available, free (as in beer, kinda) license. You don’t have to pay, and you can see the source code. But, in my quick reading, I don’t think you can make modifications, distribute modifications, di…
Your first points: "can’t make modifications, distribute modifications, distribute unmodified versions" appears to contradict the language from their license file: > Any Association grants you (“Licensee”) a license to use, modify, and redistribute the Software, but only (a) for Non-Commercial Use, or (b) for Commercial Use in Allowed Networks.
IANAL, but I thought transferring rights was required to redistribute a work. If someone downloads this software from me, I can’t give them a right to use that software. Only the original authors can do that. And even if an earlier clause says that I can redistribute, this cause suggests that I can’t.
As it is, this is a software license that I wouldn’t touch.
But even if I am wrong on this point, the rest of my argument stands. With the restrictions on use, this is neither an open nor free (as in freedom) license.
(Side note: this is why new authors shouldn’t roll their own licenses. Ambiguity is not what you want to see in a license agreement.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When will VC companies stop conflating source available with open source? It's even worse than just being closed source as it's trying to pander to a group for money, and without any respect to the actual values of what they are saying.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that source code being publicly accessible is worse than nobody being able to access it? What a ridiculous statement.
> When will VC companies stop *conflating source available with open source*?
*Misrepresenting* "open source" is the problem. "source available" is the correct phrase
Are there tools for importing from Evernote?
Does this have mobile apps?
And I assume, if I want to back it up somewhere, I can set up a peer that would sync from my devices?
A UI specific for journals is a huge selling point for me. That's like 80% of my use of Evernotes.
it could also signal about a huge gap in the platform that’s not being addressed
is it sync, ux , storage , collaboration
the fact that we are pivoting note taking an productivity trends every couple years is interesting
it could also just be another trend like micro services , nosql, orm , oop– something people do when they need to procrastinate getting work done
Here's another notion open source alternative: https://affine.pro/
My main gripe with Evernote now, is that in its effort to be a collaborative app, there is a lot of network latency for edits on my mobile device. By comparison, NotesNook is local-first and super fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0]. The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1]. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/…
That article you post as [1] refers to https://opensource.org/osd/ for "The official definition of open source software (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here)" The FSF article directly follow with this, which contradicts your claim: "However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misun…