Post #3482398

2026-06-22 19:05 UTC

Thank for the clarification. If you think this is about what I want, you haven’t been reading any of my comments. I have read them, all of them. Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision. It seems based on community input, but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be. I don’t really have an opinion on the 10% rule, I don’t think anyone can help but make that an arbitrary number. I do, however, think it’s a mistake to lean heavily toward favoring FOSS here because, as I mentioned, there is nothing preventing FOSS applications from making money. Further, it is very difficult to find software that is 100% FOSS through and through. Ultimately, the line of what is FOSS and what isn’t is what will become a problem.

Replies (1)

@curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 2026-06-22 19:12

Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision. I’m taking an amalgam of the comments in the meta thread to rewrite for a singular rule. Of course it has my take in it. Which is why I use the word “proposed” - just like with rule 3 which was the cause of drama a few weeks ago, I put my proposed version out there, it saw some mild revision, now its in place. but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be. I firmly disagree. The work is custodial, not dictatorial. I do, however, think it’s a mistake to lean heavily toward favoring FOSS here because, as I mentioned, there is nothing preventing FOSS applications from making money. Further, it is very difficult to find software that is 100% FOSS through and through. At which time as it becomes a problem it can be evaluated. That said, it isn’t hard to check the license being used (or licenses if it ties to multiple models), and the FSF has a great definition of f/loss. Can it meet the requirements to be f/loss and someone still make money? Yes. Does that make a post about it an ad? No.

Open ##3482397