I noticed them talking about one of their softwares being licensed under FSL, not having heard of it, I looked it up and…

https://fsl.software/

They kinda lost me at

What about AGPLv3 though? AGPLv3 is not permissive enough.

However, in the original article, this section definitely had me thinking. I thoroughly agree with the author’s stance on this, and I wonder if their alternatives will actually solve the problem.

As the former VP of Community at Discourse (GPLv2) I spent half a decade participating in the making of certifiably Free, Open Source Software that got put to use by literal nazis to amplify their organized hate, and all we had to say for ourselves was “well, the license says free for everyone”.

It makes me think of “”“Truth”" Social" using Mastodon code, and illegally at that. I guess… at a certain point if a bad actor is gonna be bad… Will a license stop them? I’m unconvinced that AGPL isn’t enough, but I could still be won over.

So long as my freedoms as a regular individual are maintained with the software that I use and love (my primary concern is some megacorp enshittifier being able to just take the stuff I use on the daily) then I’m open to new licensing schemes. I could be won over.

Definitely very neat.

Completely not what the article calls it.

I mean, it’s like calling a car modeling/customization webpage a Forza clone.

Or calling Mick Gordon’s YouTube page a DOOM clone.

Likely yes.

Who is us? I don’t feel particularly hated.

And it has been for almost 22 years.

Linux is not a corporation, there is no boot to lick.

What a wild take. I’m genuinely baffled that someone thought that “Linux bootlickers” was a remotely salient thing to say.

Mr. McMuscles always seems to get his hands on the most interesting details. I look forward to every release he makes.

Hence the new in-game MTX shop.

Oh well… 🏴‍☠️

I should get cheese insurance…