Contextually, it didn’t read like you were saying “only for people holding/affecting public office”, it read like a universal statement of the form: “No X are Y”
I’m glad we agree. And in addition to context, clarity matters in language. Historically, it’s not an absurdly slippery slope to go from “these politicians are corrupt” to “privacy is for terrorists!” Overly simplifying our choice of language can foster undesired radicalization.
Cheers
Right, which is why your attempt at a generalized statement was not inaccurate. It is not the case that “no good actor needs to hide their actions”.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, but just in case, this is literally the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide” argument that authoritarian govts constantly use to ban proper encryption and any form of privacy.
I believe Andrew Tate has said exactly the same thing. Literal copium.
Step 1) Make billions of dollars annually
Systemic issues can all be solved if we just band together and make a concerted effort to *checks notes* “own the woke”.
Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party
It does allow this,
You may use the software for any purpose.
You may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.
You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
But hey, way to read the source material before explaining it to someone ;)
I apologize, I got your comment confused with the other person’s who said the ability to commercialize is the important detail FUTO’s license is missing. You had said, “they require some form of ability to fork the code, and to be able to do useful things with that fork” which the FUTO license does already explicitly allow, so I assumed by “and do useful things” you also meant “commercialize”.
So yeah it sounds like we’re in agreement, and the FUTO license is already reasonably “open source”.
Trump would cut off his nose to spiderface.
The more accurate way to say that is, “open source” has a very clear meaning to a very specific set of people who agree with OSI’s definition. But language evolves, they don’t have a copyright on the term, more people have heard the term “open source” than have heard about the OSI, so “open source” means whatever most people believe it to mean.
Velcro can be upset when people call competitors’ hook-and-loop technology Velcro, but the rest of the world don’t even know they exist.
And philosophically, I think it’s time OSI updates their definition to fit the times. As stated above, I think the guarantee of unfettered commercialization is antithetical to FOSS goals. And again, I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise.
I don’t see anything wrong with limiting the commercialization of your code. I don’t agree that limiting someone from monetizing your code in a way you disagree with precludes them from “doing useful things” with a fork. Equating usefulness with commercialization seems implicitly capitalist and antithetical to FOSS. CMV.
Gotcha.
Yeah, it sounds like it’s not “open source” according to a specific definition set by the OSI. But the term “open source” has grown beyond what they believe it to mean, and the FUTO license seems more than reasonable to me.
I think the freedom to commercialize worked in the past, but we now live in a time of weaponized commercialization, especially in the mobile world. It seems reasonable to me for them to want to ensure their code is not commercialized in ways that are antithetical to the purpose of the project.
For reference, here is the license. I’m curious which part makes it “not fully open source”.
nominated to be a commissioner in 2011 by President Barack Obama, who followed tradition in preserving balance on the commission by accepting the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
That explains it…
That is a better analogy, but critically, phone lines are regulated as Title II common carrier utilities, but internet connections are not.
Given how Trump’s previous FCC pick, Ajit Pai, killed net neutrality, I expect Trump’s new pick, and his SCOTUS to pick whatever benefits Comcast the most.
Not blaming the ISP would give the net neutrality case too much credence. I think Comcast would rather be “required” to do deep packet inspection on all their users to look for “illegal behavior” (among other things).
Trump keeps praising McKinley for his tariffs, but I guess he completely forgot that it famously failed, caused prices to skyrocket for all Americans, and the Republican party handily lost in midterms and the next election.
Because the DNC is not blameless, and while we can’t control Trump or his followers, the DNC is something we (should) have control over. Being critical of the things we have control over is literally the only way to improve them.
And for the record, DNC != Democrats. The person you are responding to is being critical of the DNC, not democrats. That is a very important distinction.
Also did you just link to the wiki article on FUD as though people might not know what you’re referring to?
I agree the wording in the article is weird, but you have it backwards. Doggett (D-Texas) was an example of a Democrat who flipped their vote to oppose the bill. His quote goes on to say “America is stronger when we protect dissent in all its forms”.
Not only is that unprovable, it seems highly unlikely.