Title yes, but not tag.

You can delete a release. But you can’t change the associated tag and the attached artefacts.

Do you have some comparison documentation or benchmark to share comparing for example GitHub, GitLab, SourceHut and Codeberg?

I did not succeed in finding something comparing these forges about: -CI/CD

• runners
• issues
• project management
• wiki
• releases management
• third-party tools

I am used to GirHub and GitLab but not Codebeg 🤔

That’s vibe coding.

For example:

• blog

For example:

• codeberg (even if is target of some DDoS by alt-right)
• GitLab (but also American so under conditions of export compliance laws)
• forgejo
• gitea

What about Bitchat?

Yup, I meant Mozilla Public License

Yes indeed the Apple App Store is not compatible with GNU GPL v3 licence. Maybe MOL MPLcan suits your needs.

However plenty of open source apps under GPL v3 or AGPL v3 are available on the App Store and Apple does not care.

For example:

• https://github.com/Dimillian/IceCubesApp (Mastodon client)
• https://github.com/mlemgroup/mlem (Lemmy client)
• https://github.com/CovidTrackerFr/vitemadose-ios (COVID vaccines app)

We should support our fediverse admins and instances 💪 Support by sending money (for people who can), moderating content, submitting issues or helping the team and project ✌️

Did you have a look on Cake Wallet app? Open source under MIT license and available on F-Droid.

https://github.com/cake-tech/cake_wallet

In software ecosystem indeed there is an issue about the word “free” which can mean “free of charge” or “libre”, that is the reason why the term FOSS should be replaced by FLOSS.

In this very software world, the OSI defined “open source” by 10 conditions. The FSF defined also since eons the term “free / libre” by 4 liberties. These two things are the base of trust and understanding for every one.

For several years capitalist companies try to redefine these words because cannot bear to see that communities dislike or hate how they change the licences of their products (e.g. Elastic with BSL, Mongo with SSPL, Terraform with BSL too). They try to get excuse and fake reasons to be allowed to change the definitions but they are not legit at all.

About your example for a “free and anticapitalist” license, it cannot by “free” because one of the four liberties of the “free” definition is not filled.

However this is an interesting point because there is a new family of licences which appeared several years ago: the ethical licenses brought by the Organisation for Ethical Source (https://ethicalsource.dev/) which define the term « ethical source » by 7 principles. You can get more details about the anti-capitalist license here: https://anticapitalist.software/).

In few words, we must keep the OSI, FSF and OES definitions for open source, free and ethical source words because there are meanings, history, facts and fights behind. If they are disturbing for people or if people disagree, they have to create something else. Not change the definition for pure rebranding.

There is one definition of free in FLOSS. The FSF definition.

If it is your project, no need to get headaches about this. However keep for example the stuff like “Copyright YEAR - your-name” and say it’s under GPL 3 license. But nothing more.

It is kind of copyfarleft, so by essence it is it open source according to the OSI definition (which must by the only definition to use), more free / libre according to the FSF definition (which is the only definition also to keep).

Interesting! Do you remember where you got this chart?

You can for example have a look on the online resource below:

https://www.securemessagingapps.com/

It is very interesting with a big comparison grid between plenty of messaging solutions.

Why not using Firefox, Firefox Focus or Brave?

I still don’t understand why Hacktoberfest get so much hype. I don’t even understand Hacktoberfest meanings. Is it to get shiny badges on GitHub accounts?