Not only is that unprovable, it seems highly unlikely.

It does allow this,

You may use the software for any purpose.

You may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.

You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

But hey, way to read the source material before explaining it to someone ;)

I apologize, I got your comment confused with the other person’s who said the ability to commercialize is the important detail FUTO’s license is missing. You had said, “they require some form of ability to fork the code, and to be able to do useful things with that fork” which the FUTO license does already explicitly allow, so I assumed by “and do useful things” you also meant “commercialize”.

So yeah it sounds like we’re in agreement, and the FUTO license is already reasonably “open source”.

The more accurate way to say that is, “open source” has a very clear meaning to a very specific set of people who agree with OSI’s definition. But language evolves, they don’t have a copyright on the term, more people have heard the term “open source” than have heard about the OSI, so “open source” means whatever most people believe it to mean.

Velcro can be upset when people call competitors’ hook-and-loop technology Velcro, but the rest of the world don’t even know they exist.

And philosophically, I think it’s time OSI updates their definition to fit the times. As stated above, I think the guarantee of unfettered commercialization is antithetical to FOSS goals. And again, I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise.

I don’t see anything wrong with limiting the commercialization of your code. I don’t agree that limiting someone from monetizing your code in a way you disagree with precludes them from “doing useful things” with a fork. Equating usefulness with commercialization seems implicitly capitalist and antithetical to FOSS. CMV.

Gotcha.

Yeah, it sounds like it’s not “open source” according to a specific definition set by the OSI. But the term “open source” has grown beyond what they believe it to mean, and the FUTO license seems more than reasonable to me.

I think the freedom to commercialize worked in the past, but we now live in a time of weaponized commercialization, especially in the mobile world. It seems reasonable to me for them to want to ensure their code is not commercialized in ways that are antithetical to the purpose of the project.

For reference, here is the license. I’m curious which part makes it “not fully open source”.

They are the opposite of art in every imaginable way.

I would say it’s one of the first, but not THE first. Lemmy.world is definitely the most popular instance (to a problematic degree).

But I don’t think expressing one’s love of Spongebob inherently “excludes” anyone from using Lemmy. I don’t think the Lemmy devs have any duty to anyone but themselves. And any interest they have in user adoption is for their own reasons.

Nothing would stop someone from forking Lemmy and making an alternative with different ideologies. I assume the license would ask them to use a different name to not cause confusion, and I would hope that they don’t break ActivityPub or federation compatibility with existing Lemmy instances. But at that point, what’s the difference between a fork for ideological reasons…and just spinning up your own instance?

If you don’t like SpongeBob, pick a different instance, that’s federation.

To me this is like having a problem with the flags someone else has in their yard. Not your yard, not your flags. You’re free to not like their flags, but if your grievance is with the action of them peacefully demonstrating free speech, that’s a you problem.

Sure, maybe that guy also happens to work at the flag factory down the street. Probably explains why he has so many flags. Doesn’t mean he’s going to make you put the same flags he likes in your yard.

Edit: for the record, I’m not downvoting you, I think you’ve been very reasonable in this discussion

You’re just restating what OP said. I refer you to my original post.

If they’ve been trained to immediately recoil at the word “communism”, and don’t understand how federated moderation works, then yes, it’ll probably scare away a good number of users. But on the flip side it’s not a for-profit business trying to hook DAU using predatory and emotionally exploitative patterns, so who cares about first impressions? The people who use Lemmy know why they’re using it.

If you have an email address, you’re already used to the federated service pattern. When you sign up for a gmail, you’re making an account with Google to be able to send emails to anyone else with an email address. And there’s nothing stopping Google from making you fill out a “sketchy” application to get an account.

On Lemmy, each instance has its own set of rules, and if you don’t like them, you just make an account on a different instance.

As far as censorship, each “community” (analog to subreddit) lives on a certain instance and the rules of that instance apply.

Edit: also on the topic of communism, however you feel about communism in the physical world is irrelevant when it comes to the digital world. Free and Open Source Software makes the world go 'round, and is often communist in nature, even if done unintentionally. The pattern of people developing software for their own purposes, and then sharing it freely with others is the purest form of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” That said, running an instance isn’t free, so make sure to kick your instance a few bucks if you appreciate their work.

Ahh, yeah, I think I didn’t quite follow OP’s request. The part they don’t remember is the time between where they traveled to in the past and their “present”, and the story is about them intuiting what happened in there.

From the title it sounded like the protagonist was suffering amnesia-like symptoms about how the world used to be along with everyone else.

So the premise is: they travel back in time, change their future, travel back to the present, forget everything they did while time traveling, and now have to just experience their new future without knowing anything changed? Do I have a that right?

I mean, how do you know this isn’t the backstory for every character in every story ever? How do you know you didn’t JUST do this yourself?

I don’t see any of The Avalanches on there. All their stuff is good, but if you haven’t listened to them, probably start with the original Since I Left You album.

For reference, I discovered J Dilla - Donuts when trying to find more stuff like The Avalanches.

Yeah, that QI clip came to mind when you mentioned it, but to your point the shape that we consider “fish-like” shows up a lot in water. Even whales and dolphins figured out a similar shape, despite them not being fish (though they might still be etymologically related if you go back far enough?)

Ok, I can buy that the shape of a crab is probably optimized for a certain lifestyle.

Relevant

I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that the science indicates all mammals have a common ancestor. Not certain about fish, but I think that’s a similar case?

To me, the surprising part about carcinisation is that, the form of a crab seems oddly specific, but non-obvious. I mean, I look at the form of a fish and think, “yeah, it makes sense why that shape would be favored in water,” but I look at a crab and think “guess that’s just what worked out for your ancestors. Tough luck, buddy.” But apparently it’s not just bad luck, it’s a common strategy.

Oh yes, I was joking, that is definitely a talent outside of my wheelhouse.