Comment on Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal I’ve gotten through (I believe) a
non_burglar@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I do think it makes sense to include an exception for 100% free/libre open source projects.
Here we go again.
Both libre projects and free projects can make money via donation, patreon, or other business models. Allowing them a “vibe check” exception and not closed source or anything in between is propagating this notion that money and open source are mutually exclusive.
I appreciate the effort to establish some rules, but this is further entrenching the Lemmy self-hosting community in a mode where it’s a FOSS-only space, which is both uninclusive and inaccurate.
If what you want is a FOSS-only space for self-hosting, I’d like to know that so I can find or start a similar community where ppl who do use closed source tools can post questions.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 4 hours ago
If you think this is about what I want, you haven’t been reading any of my comments.
This comes out of what the community commented in the meta thread, with a bit of my own wording on top to meet the requests.
Also
That isn’t promotional material and would have nothing to do with this rule, so I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Thank for the clarification.
I have read them, all of them. Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision. It seems based on community input, but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be.
I don’t really have an opinion on the 10% rule, I don’t think anyone can help but make that an arbitrary number.
I do, however, think it’s a mistake to lean heavily toward favoring FOSS here because, as I mentioned, there is nothing preventing FOSS applications from making money. Further, it is very difficult to find software that is 100% FOSS through and through.
Ultimately, the line of what is FOSS and what isn’t is what will become a problem.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 4 hours ago
I’m taking an amalgam of the comments in the meta thread to rewrite for a singular rule. Of course it has my take in it. Which is why I use the word “proposed” - just like with rule 3 which was the cause of drama a few weeks ago, I put my proposed version out there, it saw some mild revision, now its in place.
I firmly disagree. The work is custodial, not dictatorial.
At which time as it becomes a problem it can be evaluated.
That said, it isn’t hard to check the license being used (or licenses if it ties to multiple models), and the FSF has a great definition of f/loss. Can it meet the requirements to be f/loss and someone still make money? Yes.
Does that make a post about it an ad?
No.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
This is functionally what I’m concerned about, and your comment above addresses it. Thanks.
I think that’s the important distinction to make. Maybe get rid of the f/loss exception and explicitly call out the paid aspect. If you’re here to promote software that’s pay walled you get the 10% rule.