no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
13 comments in c/gaming@lemmy.zip view that post
[–] 49 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So the future is open source or shit. I guess it's an improvement.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Certainly an improvement.

    Courts should still find it unconstitutional because software is free speech. I am all for advancing open source and giving people good reasons to switch to it, but not by setting precedents that governments have any business deciding what features software is allowed or required to have.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Free speech is the right to distribute any kind of information, including software code in either source or compiled form.

    That's what the legal analysis should be anyway. Whether it will be…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Fair fair, but that would apply only tp the source code, not the compiled binary/iso, not?

    If so, I think I would agree woth that take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So it was never about protecting children. They saw the market share of Linux is so minuscule that it wouldn’t matter.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Though still far from ideal, at least shows pressure helps!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Reminder, this is a “Blue” state.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago
    5 comments in c/freesoftware@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 27 points 6 months ago

    Its not enough, and it wont be enough unless the bill is completely eradicated, and then laws are in placr that make OS maintainers and developers not responsible for the actions of users that happen to be using their software. This shit is a corporate attack by Zuck and his festering ilk to avoid responsibility on their own platforms. Fuck them, fuck anyone 'lawmaker' willing to entertain the idea. Do better, fucken educate yourselves. Its 2026 computers are going to reach the 100 year mark soon. You have no excuse for this level of ignorance when you aren't slaving away 9-12 hour days everu day like we are.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Today’s compromise is tomorrow’s loophole.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Better but still not good

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago*

    What exactly qualifies as an open source OS Just an open source kernel and any amount of included proprietary apps?

    Does having any binary blobs in a kernel mean it is not actually open source?

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/news@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show view that post
    [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Wow... I really wasn't expecting that to actually happen when that idea was floated. Even if that amendment sticks I'd rather it not happen all together

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    My biggest concern with such an approach, is that companies will be more likely to choose a not completely open source licens, just to get around this. Like a code-available licens and argue that it counts as open source and should therefore be excluded.

  • source