Changing how we develop Ladybird

Post by jatora » Tue, Jun 16, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #589

jatora wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think AI music proliferation is in favor of music studios at all, hence why they want to crush it by all means necessary. You should question your stance when you find yourself on the same side as the MPAA/RIAA/etc. I am in favor of being able to find music I like, with the least friction possible, without fueling the legacy music industry that is inflated far beyond reasonability.

> You should question your stance when you find yourself on the same side as the MPAA/RIAA/etc. This is tribal thinking.

Not at all since i only asked them to question their stance

Post by TeriyakiBomb » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 10:52 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #591

TeriyakiBomb wrote: post #141

It's inevitable that more projects follow this path. The elephant in the room is so many projects already operate like this without formally announcing it. If you look at Blender, one of the biggest and most successful OSS projects out there, it's effectively run as source available. Some PRs make it through, but for the most part there have been heavy barriers to entry to get your work into the product. In this exam…

It's not "source available", that term already has a different meaning. The cathedral development model doesn't make the result any less open source or free software.

That’s why I said “effectively run as” rather than is. Cathedral does make contribution to software less open, that’s kind of its entire deal and what I’m talking about here. It doesn’t make it any less free, but then a good number of software companies sell access and closed versions of open source projects, so we continue to split hairs.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird