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.
Comment on Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal I’ve gotten through (I believe) a
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 day agoYour wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision.
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.
but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be.
I firmly disagree. The work is custodial, not dictatorial.
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.
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.
skankhunt42@lemmy.ca 1 day ago curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
Just to mention, f/loss with a paywall is not exempt per the rule.
- skankhunt42@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Yeah, I understand that. I was suggesting saying the samething without the exception wording. In the end, it doesn’t stop us from talking about paid software. I use Plex, etc, etc, it’s the promotion that’s the promotion that’s the problem… That being said, maybe I’ve misunderstood non_burglar’s complaint. Unless their a closed source dev looking to promote.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
And it shouldn’t stop any sort of discussion - its the promo thats the issue, exactly.
I’m not sure I understand their complaint either. The first comment was about something not impacted at all by the rule, and the second was about floss being hard to define (its not)? Trying to get clarity here but I think I’m missing something with their concern, I don’t see it.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Unless they are a closed source dev looking to promote.
I’m not, I swear!
Jokes aside, your example of Plex is a good one to illustrate that we’re not all at the same ratio of FOSS use, some of us have more or less of each.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is functionally what I’m concerned about, and your comment above addresses it. Thanks.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
Glad to hear it!
Just to say if you missed the “Hi I got made a mod here after I made constructive criticisms in a meta thread about rule 3” post a couple weeks ago, about the only thing not up for debate here would be being intolerant of the intolerant.
Otherwise - any rule or issue can be put up to a meta thread for discussion, including my being mod, at any time.
A rule still needs to be concise enough though, not a link to a discussion thread, which is why these posts are being made to share the amalgamated rule to make sure the community is on the same page before its put into practice.