That’s incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.

The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling or distributing GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. For example, all Linux distributions contain GPL-licensed software, as the Linux kernel is GPLv2.

Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military purposes (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.

Exactly!

If you are referring to licenses that prohibit commercial use or prevent certain types of users from using the software, those licenses are not open source because they “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor”.

For example, if a developer offers their software in a source-available “community” version that is restricted to non-commercial use and a proprietary “enterprise” version, neither the community version nor the enterprise version is open source. On the other hand, if a developer uses an open core licensing model by offering an open source “community” version and a proprietary “enterprise” version, the community version is open source while the enterprise version is not.

Open source software can be sold at different prices to different customers, and still remain open source. Open source software can also be sold only to certain types of customers, and still remain open source. Who the developer decides to sell or distribute the software to, and at what price, is unrelated to how the software is licensed.

However, because the Open Source Definition prohibits open source software licenses from discriminating against “any person or group of persons”, the customers who buy open source software cannot be restricted from reselling or redistributing the software to any other individual or organization.

uBlock Origin on Firefox with the annoyances filters enabled takes care of that for me.

Between these two options DuckDuckGo Browser is at least free and open source, while Vivaldi is closed source, which makes DuckDuckGo Browser the better choice.

Firefox and its forks are better than both. Firefox’s Gecko engine is independent of Google and Apple, while Vivaldi uses Google’s Blink engine and DuckDuckGo Browser uses either Blink or Apple’s WebKit engine depending on platform.

The paper does not recognize fluoride as a neurotoxin in its current application in Europe:

Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.

The article you linked explicitly concludes:

Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.

Hey, I think you’re totally right to challenge a statistic when it looks questionable. Censuswide didn’t release the full data publicly, and the survey was commissioned by the Ghostery ad blocker, so there’s reason to suspect that the data is biased.

I trust the YouGov data more, since YouGov is also a credible pollster and the data is being provided as market research data for businesses. However, since I don’t subscribe to their data service, I don’t have details of the methodology here, either.

Frankly, I’m not sure about the quality of the Censuswide survey.

Market data from YouGov Global Profiles shows that 51-52% of people globally (in “48 markets”) use ad blocking on at least 1 device. That percentage is 45-46% for people in the US.

My point is that when a significant proportion of internet users have ad blockers, they’re not just niche tools anymore.

Mull has defaults that improve privacy at the cost of performance and website compatibility. They maintain a list of changes that you can reverse through about:config. If Mull seems slow for you, consider re-enabling the JavaScript JIT.

Over half of all Americans use an ad blocker. It’s time to recognize that average users do block ads.

Most types of ads can be blocked with uBlock Origin, while only some kinds of paywalls can be skipped with Bypass Paywalls Clean. Ads are the most privacy invasive monetization solution and with ad blocking becoming more common, I don’t think ads are a sustainable way to fund content in the future. Still, I would prefer to see voluntary subscription and donation options rather than hard paywalls.

Tusky has been working very well for me on Android. There’s also Ice Cubes for iOS. Both are free and open source.

Any details on that? The full uBlock Origin works well on mobile and I don’t see how a lite version with reduced blocking effectiveness could be more useful.

That’s not the worst possible scenario, I’d love to see the Snap Store completely replaced with decentralized FOSS alternatives. Any scenario in which the Snap Store takes market share from decentralized FOSS alternatives is considerably worse.

Also, who said I wouldn’t use proprietary apps? I refuse to use Snap because Flatpak and other FOSS application packaging solutions that aren’t locked to a store controlled by a single for-profit company already serve my needs. I don’t have any objection to using proprietary apps that don’t have alternatives that meet my needs.

Silly whataboutism. When there are multiple Linux package management solutions to choose from that are functional, decentralized, and fully FOSS, including ones that work across distros, switching to the proprietary Canonical-controlled Snap Store is moving backward for no good reason.

The Snap Store server is completely proprietary and fully controlled by Canonical.

I was responding to a comment that claimed “he isn’t on the project since last year”. Based on his activity on social media, he is clearly still in the project.