• @onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    -8
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    If you feel that “open source”, as per the OSD, has to change, I’d ask why does it need to change instead of you using an alternative term

    Simple: OSI doesn’t own the word “open source”, nor should they. Their definition is as blue eyed and naive as Marxism. It doesn’t evolve nor live in the real world, but a one of fantasy where no method of exploitation nor circumvention has been invented. It’s basically a world where lying hasn’t been invented.

    In our real world with real consequences and real people, companies take advantage of opensource. The vast majority of open source maintainers and authors can’t live on open source. Yet somehow the privileged few that can, would like to make everyone believe that principles pay off, and that living by some definition made by the privileged is the only " right way" to make a living writing opensource.

    I find it to be nearly in the same vein as rich people who say “if you work hard enough, you can be rich like me” and throw around platitudes like “pull yourself up from your bootstraps”. Or being like those in an ivory tower judging those trying to find a way to make a living: " no, not like that! only my way is just".

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • @Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      226 days ago

      In futos case the problem isn’t that their license doesn’t meet the OSI’s definition of open source, but that the license is just garbage, like their non modification clause or their litigation clause.

      • Scary le Poo
        link
        fedilink
        126 days ago

        Case in point.

        What we have here folks is what I referred to before as a purity testing asshole. Unfortunately, open source is full of them. Most of them aren’t even developers. It’s pathetic

        • @UlrikHD@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          225 days ago

          Per our Code of Conduct, please avoid insulting users when commenting on our instance, even if “they started it”.

        • Though I agree with the point you’re making (purists and pedants are unhelpful), IMO there’s no need to stoop to their level and attack them.

          You are definitely right though. The open source community is full of these people unwilling to change, which is ironic given how vehemently they request others to change and accept open source. It’s nigh dogmatic, which I think is problematic.

          Anti Commercial-AI license