This is about open-source being open. I’m a very non-tankie, and I think this is bad- though a bit better if its only people working for sanctioned companies.
Go look at the principles of open-source or free software as defined either by the OSI and the FSF and then come back when you find the one that says that Linus needs to violate US sanctions to keep employees of Russian companies in trusted roles within his project.
Also, what does this have to do with being tankie or not? Modern Russia is very openly not communist.
.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?
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”.
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.
This is about open-source being open. I’m a very non-tankie, and I think this is bad- though a bit better if its only people working for sanctioned companies.
Go look at the principles of open-source or free software as defined either by the OSI and the FSF and then come back when you find the one that says that Linus needs to violate US sanctions to keep employees of Russian companies in trusted roles within his project.
Also, what does this have to do with being tankie or not? Modern Russia is very openly not communist.
.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?
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”.
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.