• aidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    .ml is full of tankies. Also, nothing in open-source principles say that to my knowledge. Am I not allowed to have beliefs not explicitly defined by the OSI?

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      The OSI’s definition of open-source software is the de facto definition used by most people, and for most of the remaining people that don’t, they (mistakenly, because they define “free” software, not “open-source”) defer to the FSF’s defintion of free software.

      So yes, you should be explicitly noting that what you define as “open” has nothing at all to do with the far-and-away most widely used definition(s) of “open-source”.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Yes, and I said I want open-source to be open. As in not just open-source, but also open to all. That is my personal moral value, and I advocate for that. What the OSI supports has nothing to do with that.

        • Saryn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          I want a lot of things too, but what I want most of all is to live in a society governed by the rule of law. There are no absolute rights - limiting the freedoms of people who are complicit in crimes or enable them is how we protect the rights of everyone else. Simple as.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            Limiting the freedoms of innocent people who happen to live in a country doesn’t protect the rights of others.