@deadsuperhero For what it's worth, I don't think it's really ideal to say "shut up unless you can code". Forgejo started as a fork of principles first, and code second.
But what feels really silly is that the driver here is not bad behavior but baseless speculation of bad behavior.
@Legit_Spaghetti@paul@WarnerCrocker Apparently not: "A similar situation came up before the 2020 presidential election. ... Ohio lawmakers approved changing the cutoff to 60 days — but only for that election."
@Edelruth@Legit_Spaghetti@paul@WarnerCrocker Yeah I mean moving the date of a big event is a big ordeal and a lot of wasted money, but this is major US political party level money involved, it's not like that's a hard problem.
@ariadne@scott@msw If the OSI wanted to support open source, it would've worked with companies like Elastic, Mongo, and Redis to approve licenses which enabled open source companies to thrive. Instead it's primary role in the past few years is protecting a proprietary SaaS platform from having to pay for stuff.
The OSI is really not very supportive of open source software at the end of the day.
@ariadne@scott@msw The OSI is sort of a joke and should be discounted entirely. Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft are their top sponsors in that order, which is why they're militantly opposed to strong copyleft licenses like the SSPL.
@ariadne@wwahammy@scott@msw Saying it's not open source because the Amazon-backed corporate shill outlet says it's not is a tautology. We can fix that by throwing out the OSI.
And a company which releases all of their code under GPL or MIT can use SSPL code for free. It's literally a license that promotes open source.
@theuni@schmittlauch@ariadne@wwahammy@scott@msw@Atemu The SSPL authors likely would've clarified it in a 1.1 version if the OSI was willing to meaningfully engage, but the desire to protect their sponsors was too strong. While clarification in the terms would be nice, I don't think there's actually an intention to say open source licensed components would have to be relicensed to meet the license's needs. They were trying to keep the license text as close to AGPL as possible.
@ariadne@theuni@ocdtrekkie@schmittlauch@wwahammy@scott@msw@Atemu I mean in comparison to Amazon? I really feel like if people are rooting for Amazon over companies that made their entire business around open source code, maybe they have missed the forest for the trees.
@jenniferplusplus@chris At this stage, yeah. I think the "x stars from y servers" thing is neat, but software like Mastodon deliberately doesn't want to hype engagement numbers so I think it's reasonable or unsurprising that Mastodon wouldn't do this and Threads absolutely would.
Do not cheer for the Big Tech backed "open"-branded fork that will be announced in the next week. As people any sort of ethics, we need to realize Amazon and Google aren't the good guys, and the open source community's defense of the FSF and OSI is reaching "weird nerd" status.
FAANGs and a dude who supports pedophiles every chance he can should not be who we entrust to steward what FOSS is. We should do better.
Another open source database (#redis) is switching to #sspl because the #osi prefers it's Big Tech backers over sustainable open source development.
Please remember that the reason they are forced to do this to survive is because a company which forces their employees to pee in bottles to make quotas while their CEO goes to space refuses to pay for what it uses.
#amazon is the OSI's second biggest sponsor. (The first is, of course, #google)