Well, that’s wonderful to hear!

If you’re wondering what sort of issue being careless with licenses can cause, see the (in)famous case of Tivoization. GPL 3 was written partly to solve issues like this.

The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
Wikipedia

Note how issue here is still subjective. Linux stays on GPL 2 and the people in charge are largely uninterested in planning a path forwards, or outright refuse to even consider it.

For a more recent example of how community/contributors and owner/company interest misalignment can make a huge mess, see the consequences of HashiCorp changing the Terraform license from MPL to BUSL. Relevant facts I’d like to note:

• This caused a large split in the community and with HC (“drama”).
• This was only possible due to their CLA (Contributor License Agreement) requirement for contributors.
• This eventually resulted in the birth of OpenTofu, a fork of Terraform managed by the Linux Foundation.

Or, for a slightly funny case:

A while back I saw a project on GitHub licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. The developer was considering writing a guide for contributors, even though I’m pretty sure you can’t fork and modify it to open a PR (popular way to offer contributions), because that’d break the ND clause (sharing derivatives). Were people supposed to e-mail patches straight to the developer? Who knows! There are people into that, like some Linux Kernel folks.

And finally, here’s what I thought was a very interesting take on what free means when talking about software licenses, touching upon obligations, rights and copyleft.

I’m trying to avoid opining too much, even though I can’t help it and, really, it’s inevitable. I hope these serve as entry points for further research, and that they help you form your own perspective on all this. And if you do happen to end up agreeing with me in the end… well, I obviously won’t complain :^)

I might not be the best person to explain this, but I believe you are, in fact, missing a bit of context.

Outside of software spaces the discussion around copyright seems so much more nuanced.

Inside software spaces, specific needs beget specific discussions. They are as nuanced as they need to be.

Did you know Creative Commons themselves recommend against using CC licenses for software?

what is the insistence in the free software community for what seems like total license purity?

The software world, and open source in particular, has historically had a lot of complex and frustrating moments due to licenses and the misaligned interactions of volunteers and companies. This probably leads many people to strongly advocate for what they believe would’ve helped in the past, and may help in the future.

I even see software engineers arguing that “everyone” should use Apache or MIT and not the other, which is somehow bad for the FOSS community.

I won’t get into whether everyone should use Apache or MIT—which aren’t considered copyleft, I think—but it’s also important to remember that even inside software spaces, people will often hold different and sometimes even conflicting views regarding moral/ethical/ideological matters. They can also be just straight up wrong due to lack of knowledge, experience, misunderstandings, etc. That includes me, by the way!

I hope that helped. I can point more resources later, if you want.

Depends on what you mean by trust. This wasn’t made any clearer by reading the article.

“We promise not to do bad things” is not a safe long term contract. If they can change the terms at any moment and retain control, then they can break that promise and that’s final.

This is why open source matters. This is why we shouldn’t let people try to change the meaning open source. True open source is forever open, it is the author’s Ulysses pact.

FUTO keyboard is source available, and that’s final, too. Whether it is also “source first” and if that term is worth recognizing at all is a separate and entirely valid discussion. Even the worst incarnation of source available is still generally better than closed source, in my mind.

Can there be a trusted space between open and closed source? Maybe, I don’t see why not. Again, define trust, and who’s judging. Some people already trust closed source proprietary software, for some reason, while others strongly reject anything that isn’t free software—remember, we’re not talking about price, here.

I wish FUTO and Rossman all the best, as I do with the free software ecosystem and most of open source. Open source is open source, though, let’s not get it twisted.

I can’t imagine any way this is possible without crowdsourced information, and at that point you’re just interacting with a community (likely the same one as you already are) through a different interface.

But if such an interface existed, it could be a cool project.

We would be happy to connect with your technical team to help them make sure your paywalled content isn’t served to people using Poe.

What a joke, Quora needs to reevaluate whose responsibility that is.

Basic reasoning time: was it an accident?

• If not, then it was at least immoral.
• If so, then it was incompetence.

What a surprise, both possibilities seem to point towards the project being a pile of crap.

We need to get our politicians to do a lot more, a lot faster.

So we’re still doomed, then? I’m sorry, I’m sure lots of this is meant to be incredibly uplifting, but it reads an awful lot like “green is cheaper, trust the market! Numbers go up, up, up!” when you consider that:

• Climate change is impacting countless people in horrible ways
• Climate change is still getting worse

The important thing to note here being that, even if a brighter future awaits beyond, the worst is yet to come. I’ll get back to this in a moment.

Yes, that the science to save the human race exists is nice. Really nice. There was a period in which I genuinely wondered if there was any chance humans wouldn’t extinct themselves. But that was years ago. I’ve since learned that “saving the human species” is a terrible, disgusting metric. The future of what I consider humanity remains grim.

Now, if the worst is yet to come, and we can’t yet even accurately predict how much worse the worst really will be, take a moment to reflect on this: which part of humanity is better prepared to weather the incoming changes, and which part is more likely to be labeled “climate change refugees?”

Humanity isn’t only the richest. It’s not merely the wealthiest and most developed nations. Humanity is also a lot of people who will suffer, people who I’m unconvinced will receive the aid and support they need and deserve.

Because the root cause of these issues, the systems that govern our society, have led us here and are unlikely to go away anytime soon. Because these systems have shown incredible prowess at protecting select groups of people from certain issues, while failing at completely fixing them, despite not struggling due to a lack of resources and continuous technological advances. If the pattern holds…

Then humans will survive. Many will live well.

Humanity is still pretty screwed.

TL;DR:

“The tools are here, we’ll be alright, just need political will!”

Who’s we? And if getting politicians to do what’s right was that simple, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

P.S. I’m not advocating for doom here, I just wish more people understood that Americans buying cheap Chinese electric cars won’t save the people living nearby the mine in Africa where the cobalt for those batteries was extracted.

“The elephant in the room – and the opportunity – is how to solve for the industry-created problem that people don’t like and don’t trust advertising,” said Garcia. “Privacy-enhancing tech doesn’t make creepy and disruptive ads less creepy or disruptive in the eyes of the average user.”

Emphasis mine.

Betting on your reputation that users will trust you to adequately handle an issue that really seems like it’d end up with a conflict of interest seems like a fancier manner of saying you’re risking taking a dump on your reputation.

No way through but forwards now, eh. Not feeling particularly optimistic, but I’m cheering for them all the same. Their concerns and observations about the direction the industry is headed in are valid.