Sounds like they’d be fine with Anubis if it was opt-in instead of automatic. Their concerns are valid in that it runs an unwanted/non-consented payload and so fits a strict definition of malware. The browser is a user agent, so it should only do what the user wants it to do.
Like fuck off, to think I ever liked these guys
You might have liked them for the wrong reasons, this is the least surprising response they could have made lol. Either you share in their hard-line stance or you align with something lesser like open source. Copyleft is uncompromising by design.
Sounds like they’d be fine with Anubis if it was opt-in instead of automatic. Their concerns are valid in that it runs an unwanted/non-consented payload and so fits a strict definition of malware. The browser is a user agent, so it should only do what the user wants it to do.
You might have liked them for the wrong reasons, this is the least surprising response they could have made lol. Either you share in their hard-line stance or you align with something lesser like open source. Copyleft is uncompromising by design.
Copyleft and open source has nothing to do with this. This is just a blogpost of them of why they dont use Anubis and their concerns.
It informs exactly the type of response they’ve given. If you can’t understand why the authors of the GPL would respond like this that’s on you.
What is this supposed to mean? How does software licensing relate to this? Anubis is a free program.