Just saw the discussion around the Haier Home Assistant takedown and thought it would be good to materialize the metaphorical blacklist.

  • bluegandalf@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    It might be a good idea to do the exact opposite I.e. make a OSS whitelist. It will be much easier to maintain given the scale of applications/services/products.

    • akrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Although I agree, it’s tough to make a whitelist than a blacklist, as the latter requires only 1 bad decision, the former is tough to assess (how many good decision to be on the list, ex Microsoft support lots of open source projects, should they be added?)

  • BlanK0@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    I really like seeing codeberg being used more.

    Also I’m definitely keeping my eyes on this repo once in a while 👀🧐🍵

    • qaz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I created it less than an hour ago. If you have any other suggestions please share (or send a pull request).

      EDIT: The list contains 3 companies now

  • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    We are writing to inform you that we have discovered two Home Assistant integration plug-ins developed by you ( https://github.com/Andre0512/hon and https://github.com/Andre0512/pyhOn ) that are in violation of our terms of service

    Did the guy explicitly agree to their Terms of service? If not, how can he be in breach of them?

    cease and desist all illegal activities

    What illegal activities exactly?

    Feels like unenforceable scare tactics, but IANAL.

  • OneThere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Add Mazda to this list please.

    The developer of this plugin for HomeAssistant apparently didn’t have insurance and couldn’t risk the legal fight. This is the DMCA take down that Mazda issued for the reason that the code “provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store”

    https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

    Additional Coverage: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/mazdas-dmca-takedown-kills-a-hobbyists-smart-car-api-tool/

  • jaeme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Surprised that most hardware companies aren’t on the list. AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Apple, Broadcom all are hostile to reverse engineering or in Nvidias case, not even bothering to do the bare minimum for an ultra lenient Torvalds.

  • Gooey0210@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    As i understand google and Microsoft don’t really fit here

    Probably the definition should look something like: companies that proactively did actions towards harming open source culture/community/movement. Don’t respect foss licensing, etc

    I nominate Gitea for this one, for hijacking the project, and making it for profit organization

    Also, Ultimate Guitar with their kido musescore, for basically trying to do the same thing that manga company is trying to do right now

    And my favorite… Facebook for their oculus privacy and for threatening to sue everyone who tries to jailbreak or modify their devices

    Simple tools is probably not considered open source anymore

    P.S. oh! Really also think about Proton, Brave, and Telegram

    Three companies that are famous for saying they are foss, but in really it’s often not exactly that

    Proton’s and telegram’s servers are not foss

    Telegram and brave had many instances of delaying publishing the source, even though they already updated the apps

    Also, not sure how about now, but telegram is famous for having not reproducible builds, brave probably too

    • bluegandalf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Proton’s server code is not Open Source because it contains filter and anti spam detection which if released, would severely hamper their ability to detect spam and keep their users safe + detect abuse for their service.

      Proton has had extensive security audits done and their claims have been backed up by independent third parties.

      The definition should be further modified to include legitimate reasons for not open sourcing some code + having audits to back up claims.

      • Gooey0210@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Facebook has their reasons to keep stuff as closed as possible, and they don’t claim to be opensource

        But proton does, and it’s not about privacy or security, but about using banner of foss just for their own benefit, and don’t contribute what they claim to the foss community

        • bluegandalf@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They open source all of their clients (when not in beta). They maintain multiple open source cryptographic libraries, in multiple languages, which a lot of developers and companies go on to use. They have a yearly fundraiser for open source and digital rights groups, which they contribute a $100,000 to each year.

          Just because their server code is not open source, doesn’t mean they don’t support open source. It’s not an all or nothing situation. Binary thinking and classification is a very dangerous and naïve way to look at things.

  • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Sure would be a shame if people used this blacklist as a basis for leaving negative reviews on Amazon.