Thank you for standing up for the free software definition. As someone who has been heavily critical of fauxpen source licenses including FUTO it's refreshing to see moderators taking a stance against it.

The main concern I have with this attempt (by FUTO and other organizations trying to "fix" open source) is that watering down the open source and free software definitions causes damage to the community/movement. Whether the FUTO EULA or any other proprietary license is "good enough" for an individual user is not the question (and I have even seen people argue in favor of fully-proprietary blob software on the basis of being "privacy friendly"); real free software disadvantages rightsholders in favor of users and communities, which is important in case those rightsholders go defunct or rogue.

I try to assume good faith as well but I am seriously considering the idea that FUTO is astroturfing free software spaces to promote its version of open source. Despite publicly backing down on their openwashing attempt Eron Wolf-in-sheeps-clothing seems very determined that open source is broken and needs fixing.

Yeah, Rossman getting in bed with people that are deliberately trying to dilute the meaning of open source really killed my opinion of him.

Thanks for the level-heades and reasonable explination. These actions make complete sense

I think this would make sense in a Lemmy community that was OpenSourceInitiative who has a very specific set definition. But Open Source as a general idea is fairly open to interpretation. Some people think source-available is open source. I disagree, but that's just my personal opinion. Now if something was closed source, that's a very clear distinction.

I've seen communities die out over mods enforcing their personal definitions. The Linux subreddit and Lemmy Linux community had issues with this a few years ago where the mod was deleting comments of people talking about what fell outside of their idea that Linux discussion should be FLOSS-only (people discussing closed source apps that ran on Linux, etc).

I think deleting does more harm than good. It's better for people to discuss when things are a problem so they can understand them better. The Free Software Foundation is way more strict as to their licensing ideas, but even they still discuss and have a page full of alternative licenses where they discuss some are better than others (and even a bad open source license is better than a non-open source license). They don't ban the mention of conflicting ideas.

Deleting just leaves people confused (and in my case I would have appreciated knowing the issue instead of just seeing a thread full of deleted comments and remaining ignorant). And it does a greater harm because people casually searching on search engines or whatever won't find any sort of discussion or push back.

Holy shit. A .ml mod being reasonable and making mod decisions based on what'd best for the community instead of pure personal bias. Congratulations perhaps their is still hope for .ml to be redeemed and forgiven.

Unrelated but you should post one more comment

obviously-not-open-source

Yes: futo keyboard license. And also a contradictory license with that definition of 'use'.

I would submit that even if it is misinformation and people are climbing all over the comments claiming that FUTO is definitely open source, removing the comments to leave only the remnant of it that is "truth" is often not the best way to handle it. The majority of the removed comments didn't seem like they were saying that, some even specifically said that FUTO isn't open source but blah blah blah, but even if so, here's my feeling:

The way the conversation looks right now is just confusing. There are people who have no idea about FUTO who have the feeling that they're just not allowed to talk about it, or to say true statements (for example, whatever you think of their license, they fund real open-source projects.) Because FUTO is officially "bad" and they might get banned or something for wanting to talk about it or ask questions. It actually doesn't look to me like people are coming in primarily to evangelize. But regardless of that, my personal feeling is, you have to let people talk.

I feel like if there was a sticky comment from a mod / admin at the top of the comments, something like PSA: FUTO is not open source. The people that are claiming it is, are wrong, with respect to long-established definitions. (link) (link), then that would be fine. People can see the arguments, and presumably there's enough respect in place for the "leaders" of the community that they'll give a lot of weight to the sticky comment. But they still have the sense that they're allowed to talk about it and think about it on their own instead of being ordered to receive the correct interpretations from above, when they don't even have their bearings as far as what's even being talked about.

I'm not secretive about my strong disagreements with a lot of lemmy.ml moderation philosophy. I'm just making an effort, here, to explain why I have such a strong disagreement in a productive fashion, instead of just hectoring or being combative about it.

what nice bootlickers you have here lol no matter how many they are, it is still not enough to deny the truth

can you explain? appreciate the insight...

(Ironic because they always accuse .world and other instances like .ee of becoming echo chambers)

I had someone from lemmy.ml tell me "I’m happy that you libs have your own instances!", and apparently mean it sincerely. In their mind, maybe, the 4,530 active users on lemmy.ml+lemmygrad+Hexbear are "Lemmy," and the 39,721 other users are on "their own instances."

Not that being in the majority means you're right. But if you're in the minority, and you don't know it, that's often a warning sign.

I didn't know, I'm mainly active on lemmy.world. How can that instance have so much traction?

Apropos of nothing, I take issue with calling stuff that isn't open source "free" (even little-f "free," let alone "Free Software"). Even if it costs $0 it isn't "free" if it costs you your freedom or privacy.