(#zaoprhq) Personally I’m very fond of permissive licensing like MIT for things that I work on myself, but I also am not looking for financial support from any of these efforts. But we can’t set licenses and then be upset when people abide by them: As long as we allow by license terms for Amazon to profit off the work of open source companies in a one-way transaction, we can’t complain that they do so.
(#zaoprhq) I would agree with the original claim, that open source is broken, because we’ve let small groups of people (OSI and FSF) hold very arbitrary and restrictive rules that prohibit fixing the issue. The SSPL and similar solutions exist, but we refuse to embrace them because of these gatekeepers to the official definitions of FOSS.
(#zaoprhq) @firstname.lastname@example.org I respectfully disagree. Software is offered or sold on terms, and if corporations aren’t giving back, that’s because they don’t have to: Most people with money have it because they don’t part with it when they don’t have to. If we want healthy open source, we have to set terms for open source that establish healthy relationships with corporate users.
(#jkgumvq) @email@example.com Here’s the thing I’ve seen from the wonders of doing IT support for people, and hence seeing things like where they browse news and what emails they get: People are fed a completely distorted view of reality. And if you’re seeing that constant stream of awful, and someone says “but you can do your part to save us for $x”… a lot of otherwise very rational people will do it without a second thought.
(#suv25xa) Though considering that the service isn’t even named the same as last time I logged into it, that I recall, and I had three previous posts tops, I would not have been shocked if my login did not work.