EzTerry
Programmer, Gamer
First realize what is being talked about is the generally agreed upon open source definition https://opensource.org/osd
While it seems they have simplified the license removing some reasons it’s not to be considered open source, it’s still restricting commercial uses in the following two restrictions:
"You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others."
In short open source would only require the software be distributed with source under the same licensed as recieved, thus can’t restrict it to non-commercial, nor prevent the changing of payment details.
Obviously it’s a reasonably permissive license, and possibly won’t impact you from using it as an end user. It’s just has some restrictions for the creators to request payment, and to prevent third parties profiting off the product. Think Creative Commons, share alike, non-commercial for software. (While most will consider this fair its not quite fully open)
One reason they went this route was to prevent third parties form distributing their software with ads and using it in systems they are actively attempting to provide alternatives for (ie software that may spy on your system useage/and call home) the non-commercial clause has more teeth than say MIT where it would be relicensed, or GPL that while the software source would need to be provided might still be embedded in a ecosystem.
I do wonder how much this has changed:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053929419/feel-like-you-dont-fit-in-either-political-party-heres-why
But I’m tired of those on here thinking the Democrats need to become the “progressive left” when that is not who the Democratic party represents… Or let’s be clear it’s only a small but loud fraction of it, that keeps threatening on leaving.
That said I’m not sold trying to go after the “populist right” was the right Move, stick to centrist working class.
Of course if the far left didn’t vote… The party is stuck moving even more to the right … So… We will see.
What would interest me more is a “party” of leftist that:
- provides people to local town/county elections (and further up as it gains success)
- promotes democrats that fit their views (AOC for example) note this is not running as a third party, just promoting those that exist
- dosnt run against other stron democrats in the larger races, president in particular this is a central roll elect someone that will help get your policies in place.
More important promote, explain, and teach the pogressive policies and how it will help people, and be willing to debate pros/cons of other ideas. This exists I feel, but not on this echo chamber…
I would need to know what US state [if any] you are registerer to vote in to look up what your primary options were. And how you might have used it best to state an opinion.
In NJ:
We did have the uncommited option (got 9%, nearly the rest to Biden at the time, you could have also written in any other elegable person) However we also had a senate race:
In the democratic primary senator race, the results were (aprox) 9% for Lawrence Hamm 16% for Patricia Campos-Medina 75% for Andy Kim
If you want the US to be less involved with the Netanyahu government Kim was the worse of the three.
And this decision (ie who will be in the senate, driving laws) makes a huge difference in the party wide policy, that is the primary policy Biden (now Harris) is following… Since the president is inherently a centrist roll. (Ie center of those the people elect, this can of course shift left/right/up/down/ect with the electorate)
Is the system perfect no… (but posts on instant runnoff voting, or ranked choice will make the post a book, and they are not yet the system in play, last these systems would really only help reiterate the signal the primaries give… It would be still someone in the center of the electorate at the top… And if we are lucky more parties)
Not sure I agree republicans are worse off (as much as I might wish they were.)
But hopefully Kamala Harris picks a good running mate and with them gives a proper voice and direction to the party. (My concers aside I want to see the government work for the best interests of the people at the end of the day… And not for specific groups of people, or corporate interests. (And this includes calling out business owners when they put their business of any size over the needs of the people and community)
Even before today’s news of Biden stepping down, I feel the public party infighting about him/trump/ect instead of getting anything of substance into the news stream is an indication the current democratic party is over. As in effectively not a party.
Thus to add to AOC’s comment: A very bad time for this as our system has two semi stable states… 2 party rule… Or one party rule. (Sure outside groups/parties can and do help mold the main parties to their actual policy goals, but and if are popular enough get merged in or replace a main party)
This means can a new party grow out of the ashes of current one and actually organize in time for the election. (Obviously this “new” party gets to use the name/infrastructure of the one I’m calling over so may just look from the outside a shuffle of administration if fast… And it needs to be fast)
And while I was happy to vote for Biden, and now presumably Harris, the lack of strength I see from Democrats on policy very much concerns me. (Not even it needs to be as far left as many on here seem to want it but it must be functional… So those more left can debate actual policy… Not that issues even exist… Or ignoring it all together)
One sliver of hope is this can be used to pivot the talking points back on track… But given the media climate I am not hopeful.