https://lemmy.ml/post/13864821

I’d understand if they were a random user, but a mod should already have at least some understanding about a community’s topic.

But worse to me are their comments in that post calling the people responding “childish trolls in this community”. I do not think that this is appropriate for a moderator.

  • onlinepersona
    31·
    9 months ago

    My issue js with misuse of terms with a fixed meaning, i.e. open-source. Having different people use a single term in multiple ways makes it so much more difficult to understand each other and enables bad actors to rile people up against each other.

    I see 🤔 Yeah, I’m not sure where I stand on that. On one hand, language evolves, on the other there’s “technically correct”. Maybe it irks me that calling projects like Redis “source-available” puts it in the same category as projects that just publish their code with a “no copy, no derivative” license. To me, those are nowhere near the same.

    Maybe there’s another term out there?

    .

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      4·
      9 months ago

      I understand what you mean. With Redis and many other database/cloud companies switching to source-available licenses, maybe the term source-available doesn’t have to have such negative connotations. Open-source is also divided in permissive and copyleft licenses (e.g. BSD and GPL), both have big implications on how it can be used.

      Redis and others see themselves forced to switch to a more restrictive license because of the big cloud providers, who sell services for others software, without contributing back. This change is not good, but it might be necessary. Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it’s necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.

      I personally don’t really dislike licenses which allow for the necessary freedoms of open-source after one or two years. It’s a compromise but secures the longevity of software beyond a companies success. It’s way better than proprietary code.

      • onlinepersonaEnglish
        21·
        9 months ago

        Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it’s necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.

        In a sense, forcing a commercial vendor to “contribute back monetarily” is a form of restriction 🤔 Not sure if forcing some other kind of contribution would be better, similar to how GPL forces licensing…

        Anyway, thanks for sharing your point of view.

        CC BY-NC-SA 4.0