Vivaldi is proprietary so it's worse than free options, including Brave.
This isn't an endorsement of Brave, since there are better free options as well, such as Helium for Chromium based browsers, or LibreWolf.
GrapheneOS is critical of this initiative here and I think their criticism has merit. This simply moves the gatekeeper from Google to a handful of OEM's who won't let you use anything other than their blessed OS's.
smart tab groups, a new AI-powered feature that suggests names and groups based on the tabs you have open.
Yeah sure ok. Did the community ask for this too?
Notice they avoid using the exact term "open source" in this press release. I'm ~90% sure it'll turn out to be under some proprietary source-available license.
I don't think the ffmpeg maintainer is complaining that Microsoft is using ffmpeg, rather that they are opening "high priority" bug reports based on customer complaints. This might be a high priority problem for Microsoft but that does not make it so for ffmpeg.
The license allows Microsoft to use ffmpeg but they aren't entitled to demand free labor from the project. Really, no one is entitled to do so, but Microsoft being a large company who can definitely afford to put money or talent on the problem makes it only that much more egregious.
edit: I would note that asking for help or reporting a bug is usually welcome, the problematic part is demanding help because it's a high priority issue for YOUR customers.
Discord is a proprietary centralized service that is hostile to privacy and third-party clients.
ChromeOS is Linux with Google’s desktop environment
Always has been. One does not "use Linux" they use an operating system built on top of Linux.
Chrome is not Linux, but Xfce also is not Linux. Gnome is not Linux. KDE is not Linux. Linux is Linux.
Software freedom applies only to hardware you personally own. It wouldn't even apply to machines you interact with but do not own (such as ATMs or kiosks) since you aren't the one who agrees to the proprietary software license.
Stallman himself explains it in his computing FAQ.
We live in a timeline where desktop apps all run in a browser, whereas mobile websites are all their own apps.
I say this as someone who is probably one of the biggest supporters of software-freedom around here, but bullying or shaming people for preferring non-free apps does nothing but incite resentment towards the movement. I value the four freedoms because I think I deserve control of my computing, not because I think it's my place to dictate what others should value.
Reddit karma is a self-perpetuating problem. Karma being used as an indicator of an account's quality and trustworthiness incentivizes karma farming, effectively turning fake internet points into real money. This spurs the development of bots whose sole purpose is to farm karma by reposting old content from humans (and more recently using ChatGPT to generate comments) which then spurs the rise of human "bot hunter" accounts whose sole purpose is to detect and report bots "stealing" content. At some point reddit turns into bots acting like humans vs humans acting like bots.
As far as I know the ruling specifically applies to cases where there there is no human involvement whatsoever, since copyright can only be granted to human authored works. If something has an element of human involvement it may be copyrightable even if generative tools were used in its creation.
It's not some sort of "anti-copyleft" deal where a single generated commit somehow nullifies the copyright of the human-authored parts. It's kind of a trend among slop-detractors to act like this is the case (that a single piece of generated text somehow turns the entire project into slop) but there's no legal basis for that I think.