Sounds very nice! Sounds like you had a great idea, and learned something from it. BTW my question why you know that was just a joke, but I’m glad I asked it. :D Thanks for sharing this experience, its always great to hear stories like that.

Note my reply is not an answer, just more questions.

I would assume it mainly talks about the Google services, that are also disabled by alternative Android versions like e/OS (fork of LineageOS). But they come with an Open Source service implementation microG, to be somewhat compatible, but it doesn’t guarantee 100% compatibility. Sooo, does Leptop disable those Google services without a replacement? Can it use microG?

I’m super curious to what tools you would use? Other than games off course, I wanted to find a reason to finally get around and install Waydroid. But I just don’t find a reason to, please help. :D

What is the issue with Waydroid? Thought its a good solution, as it got lot of praise.

Waaaaaaaaait a minute --.–, why do you know that? :D But yes, thanks, this makes me a bit more relaxed.^^

Agreed. Also these kind of tests are always weird, because its mostly default settings. While this makes sense in Windows, it only makes kind of sense in a Linux distribution, because as you said its actually more about stuff like the desktop environment. But at least, because it is default configuration, we know what it means and contains. I also don’t care about the results for Windows, just compare the Linux vs Linux stuff, that’s more interesting to me.

I think you confuse two things here: Combining files in an archive with different licenses versus the source code that links and combines sources. GPL is about the source code. You can build a game that access other code in other licenses, otherwise no one in Linux could use Nvidia code in example. The final shipping product can mix GPL stuff and non GPL stuff, but cannot mix the code part that compiles.

both Linux distros definitely perform better than Win11

Not exactly, at least the final results show that Windows 11 is in between both distributions:

I personally doesn’t care much about Windows and am surprised the gap between Ubuntu and Cachy is this big.

I must say, the results are more varied than I expected.

MIT does not prevent from contributing back. Also GPL does not ensure it is contributing back. Besides thiefs and Ai companies, anyone can use GPL privately, modify the code and do whatever they want without contributing back, if not published openly.

Can you name me MIT licensed projects where it is a problem like you describe?

I rather recommend torrents and download files named like “Rihanna.mp3.exe”. This is to my knowledge the most secure source.

these were dirt cheap on the darkweb circa 2014 and i hope that they still are

I don’t know how, but I’m sure Ai found a way to increase those prices too. lowkey joking here, but I’m actually scared by the idea this could be true. Edit: I mean so that Ai tools can access those videos as cheap as possible.

Yes, but does anyone actually use LGPL still? Anyway that is a different license and not really GPL anymore, as it does not force anything. I mean if the project is GPL licensed already, then you can’t turn it into LPGL, because that is no longer compatible. So the issue for programs and games being GPL remains. If they were LGPL from the start, yes, that probably would solve it.

One example is that GPL games cannot be published in Steam, with using Steams proprietary tools and features.

And in general I am not actually against for any company to use MIT licensed products without open sourcing their own proprietary tools. It would be nice if they open sourced it, but I am against in forcing companies to do so. Now I understand the risks involved here, but its not like MIT license is the devil, just like GPL can be problematic in some cases, MIT can too.

Thanks for providing a source. I will watch it at later time and put it on Watch Later list. Until then I can’t really say anything about it, just wanted to thank you.

I can’t speak for medical field… but a more serious topic, in example videogames. :D

I think sometimes GPL can be in the way, so it is a tradeoff. In example if you use proprietary Steam features in your game, then you cannot build the game with GPL libraries and code, because that is not compatible with proprietary code. For some that is exactly what the GPL is set to do, for others its hindering games and other software to be released on Steam with Steam features. That means, its impossible to sell GPL software on Steam, if you want to use any of those features (I think in example Achievements and online save files in example). MIT would solve this issue.

I don’t think Ai companies care about the license at all, or cannot be checked after the training. So that is not really an argument to me.

Why does it matter?

Why not?

This is not about defending corporations. It doesn’t matter who does that, I don’t think writing new tools with a different license is bad. My opinion has nothing to do about who does that, if communities, or corporations. I think having tools in a different language than C, especially something like Rust, is a good thing. Anyone who writes Rust code can read, adapt and make changes to it.

And for licensing, GPL can be problematic in some cases that is not compatible with every license. Therefore having an alternative in MIT license is a good thing. Even if it ends up being in a proprietary program, its still better than not able to use the code. The old GPL code is still maintained independently.