I recently spent some time browsing my favorite website, Distrowatch.com, where they provide weekly news updates on the latest developments in the world of Linux distributions. This week, I noticed that a new distro had been added to their list: SDesk. Given its intriguing name, I decided to take a closer look and discovered that it utilizes a programming language called ‘Blue’.
What caught my attention was that to use this Blue programming language, one must pay $131! As someone who values open-source principles, I found this surprising, especially since many Linux distributions are built on the idea of free and open collaboration.
Other websites also features links to a previous GitHub page for Blue, which was removed. Without knowing the original license used by that project, it’s unclear whether using paid-for programming language in an open-source operating system would be legally acceptable. As I’m not a lawyer nor an expert online, I’d love to hear from anyone who might have insight into this matter.
To me, it seems counterintuitive for a Linux distro to incorporate proprietary programming tools that require payment to edit or modify code. This goes against the fundamental nature of open-source collaboration, where code is freely shared and repurposed. It’s an interesting development, to say the least what are your thoughts?
dead-github link https://github.com/SteveStudios/Blue
–edit
also when finding the link duck duck go said it was GPL V3
You must log in or register to comment.
Stritcly speaking if you buy it and it comes with sources under the GPL then that is perfectly okay. The principle of freedom software isn’t that everything is free of charge, but rather that when you obtain software you should be free to access its source and customize it for your needs and share those modifications with other people.
That does make it hard for people to really have to pay for it, but it’s not like people don’t pirate proprietary software anyway. The presumption is if you’re honest and a good person you will pay the other for the software that you like and want to keep using.
It’s also not violating the GPL by having proprietary apps alongside GPL ones bundled together. SteamOS for example, comes with Steam and other proprietary Valve stuff.
But I would definitely expect it to not be popular and for most of the open-source and Linux communities to want nothing of it (paying for a programming language, what is this, 1995 when we pay for Delphi?).
I like how the “wiki” on their website is just a bunch of uneditable premade articles so pretty much the exact opposite of a real wiki (also the articles are terrible, the “introduction to linux” looks like a perfect way to make someone give up on evem trying linux)
A lot of websites do not know what wiki is supposed to be.
One Czech search engine has a wiki page which is actually just a list of repeatedly searched things, and it does include a lot of wild stuff.
Aside from the fact it’s paid product, it seems to me they’re trying so hard to reinvent the wheel.
GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonFreeTools
In the old days proprietary compilers was the norm. If “blue” is of value an open source equivalent will be made eventually. But looking at the blue examples and sdesk repo I doubt it.
Going just by the examples, Blue itself seems more an incomplete templating/code generation layer for getting some syntax sugar than anything else. Like you write Blue targeting C, write super high level constructs in Blue, then include C headers and snippets of C code for all the stuff you can’t write in Blue, and finally transpile Blue into C which is then compiled conventionally.
So that’s 131$, for what extremely likely is a rebranded popular distribution, with what very likely is a rebrand of Firefox
Thats the intreasting thing i never could find what the browser is based on! Im assuming firefox or chromium.
I don’t have any problem with an open source tool using a proprietary language or build tool, but I certainly would never contribute to it.
