So we have the OSI dilute the Open source definition for grifters. Sorry Large Language Model AI.
The FSF .... Let's just not.
Now we have FOSDEM opening it's doors to a billionaire who presumably found Davos too boring and wants fresh blood to grift off.
I'm feeling like our FOSS orgs have drifted away from what I thought they were.
Perhaps it's the rose coloured glasses falling from my eyes.
@onepict I do think it's time for some less-open licenses to take the lead. I'd be well up for a combination of https://anticapitalist.software/ and https://climatestrike.software/ with some sort of no-hate-speech clause.
@Floppy @onepict The problem I keep coming back to with these licenses is that the likelihood of practical enforcability seems close to nil, while it *does* make it much more complicated to juggle licenses when building on other people's work, especially without a dedicated legal team (ie. it harms small developers more).
I'm not convinced that the license is the correct place for these restrictions in the first place, it seems that "exclusion from support and community" would be far more effective with less collateral damage.
@joepie91 @onepict yeah, it would certainly need a lot of collective action before it became anything more than a statement of intent. The viral aspect is always why I avoid GPL, didn't want to make my stuff hard to use. Very tricky problem, but one I'd love us to find a way through one day.