limagnolia

Maybe you posted the wrong link- I don't see anything at all about Google making a report or being asked to do anything and declining?

Sorry, I am aware of this, I worded my comment incorrectly. What I meant to say is that one will be unable to ask for money for a ~different license~ to my contributions, becuase my contributions will be under the copyleft license, and I will not sign any agreements that give the project maintainers rights to license my contributions under a proprietary (Non open source) license. Yes, anyone is still free to ask for money for copy left code. But it is still copy left, and as such, the license goes with it.

Apologies for my poorly worded comment!

The Drupal Association and its mismanagement of the community? I don't know how dead Drupal is, but I used to actively use and promote it and I have long since moved on, due in part to the Drupal Associations shenanigans.

If you share your code with me under a copy left license, I will share my contributions under the same copy left license... you will not then be free to ask for money for things built on top of or with my contributions. You may be okay with that, but it is a decision you have to make.

I am pretty sure that these industries use the open source projects the Linux Foundation maintains. So it is pretty clear the Linux Foundation is indeed a user community group, too.

Do you have any examples of Google submitting vulnerabilities and refusing to assist maintainers create a patch when asked to do so?

So far, the Linux Foundation, from what I have seen, has pretty darn good track record of keeping the projects under its umbrella open source, even going against corporate sponsors to do so. For a recent example, see the recent NATS tuffle. (And I should.recognize that Synadia, finally, did the right thing and backed down).

I'm not sure that average across the entire industry is a good measure of how animators are paid for high budget, high talent features.

Big tech didn't steal anything. Elastic used open source software as the foundation of their product (specifically, Apache Lucene), and released their product as open source. The license allowed Elastic to do so, and likewise, the license Elastic used allowed "big tech" to use Elastics product. If it wasn't for open source, Elastic wouldn't exist.

Then, Elastic whined about Amazon using Elastic under the open source license they used to build their product. They whined that Amazon wasn't contributing enough. So they switched the license to their product. So Amazon took over maintaining the open source software. Doing exactly what Elastic asked them to do.

Sorry, but everything about Elastic, and especially this most recent announcement of layoffs, scream "bad leadership".

Elastic isn't Open Source though, they abandoned Open Source. It seems to me like this is an example of non-Open Source whatever licensing causing job loss. Or just plain bad leadership.

It would be absolute stupidity for a property owner to keep a property vacant solely to reduce the property tax assessment. Certainly there are some stupid rich people... but I doubt that the majority are that stupid. There must be some other explanation.

Most of the US does, its called property tax. Or in some cases, land value taxes.

In another article, it mentions that there is a buffer zone still owned by the city between the houses and the datacenter. They also mention that there is another park nearby (doesn't say how near).

Okay, I can only see a few sentences and was going off what other commenters have said.

Possibly... there is a lot of unknown details here. The article posted appears to be rage bait rather than a well researched article.

Thanks, I actually just found that article- and it gives a completely different view of events than the posted article. For one, it says the suit was from a group of residents, not the family who donated the land.

There seems to be some missing details from the few sentences in this article. Does anyone have the full story? Why did the court dismiss the families lawsuit?

Not the poster to whom you are questioning, but I would argue that inspiring and encouraging are much better than coercing, especially if the goal is to educate, as I am skeptical that coercion is ever going to work to get true learning.

But there is a difference in behaving ethically and behaving legally. While there may be consequences for behaving unethically (IE "I won't do business with them because I do not feel they are ethical"), society generally only overtly punishes those who do things that are illegal.

At that point, why wouldn't they just give their employees a corporate debit card and say "go and buy the subscription you want."? I suppose the enterprise plans come with additional controls and features? But are they worth it?

Well that is why it is open source. It doesn't matter how big the company is behind it, you can use it without the company that owns the name, and even use a different, small tech company for support.

Your recourse for Meta bricking your hardware is Small Claims Court, in the US anyway... other countries may have something similar.

Because the OSI is responsible for the creation of the term as a concept (Yes, I know you might be able to find one or two instances of some one saying "open source" in the context of software before the OSI came along, but the vast majority of usage and the ideas behind it came about because of the OSI).

More importantly than that- because the OSI definition is a darn good one and the BSL is a garbage license that restricts essential freedoms. The OSI definition ensures a standard set of minimum freedoms exist. Namely, the BSL makes it difficult for a fork to exist, brings additional restrictions that could need additional legal review, and prevents users from seeking alternative suppliers, locking them into an ecosystem that may not or may cease to meet their needs.

Why do you think the OSI should be concerned with European companies and their business models? Why would European companies have a more difficult time building software centric open source businesses than companies in other countries?

The OSI definition is just fine for software licenses. It doesn't need to "mature". The BSL is not compatible with the principles and concept of open source software.

I don't think it was presented as an "vs". Both can be a form of violence, even if one is much worse than the other.

For most of the short simple documents I create, I don't want to redo the formating for every document. Simply writing it in something simple like Markdown ( possibly a markdown wysiwig editor) and having my software automatically apply appropriate standard formats to it is ideal.

Right, It should be included in the app store page. Apple should have a specific place for it and it should be required.

Cars don't really need an online component in order to continue working. Some manufacturers have tried to force some features into online components, but the cars continue to work without it once they turn it off.

Forgejo is doing a lot of work to make the tooling decentralized, too. They are using open protocols and standards to link self hosted forges together.