I love these memes that turn into threads full of vim tips. You really can do anything within vim. You can even exit vim!: !killall vim

What are you on about? Dessalines said “No, that is full of CSAM.” I would like to know how they came to that conclusion.

or do the .ml admins have a more broad definition of csam?

Their definition seems to be “I don’t like anime”.

OP is lying through their teeth, nothing was found.

Literally any evidence at all beyond “dessalines said so” would be a good start. Hell, even dessalines specifically describing what he saw would be great.

You’re posting to /c/foss, not /c/freeofchargeandthecodeisavailableforinspection.

You’re mixing up cranks and bigots. Bigots tend to get banned because they’re harmful. Cranks tend to exclude themselves on principle.

The term “crank” is usually used as a pejorative, but cranks can sometimes be beneficial. Richard Stallman is the prototypical example of a Free Software crank. Definitely annoying, but also definitely a net benefit to all of us.

That’d be covered by #4:

The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

There is a clause about redistribution (1), and it expressly specifies that it applies to “aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources”, not single, standalone works.

That is a weird way of wording it. In practice I doubt there are any OSI-approved licenses that prohibit standalone commercial distribution. If there were, you could trivially comply by just including a “hello world” program to make it an aggregate distribution.

It is, but some people are weird about it.

From the RFC, it sounds like the system proposed here is more robust than what kbin has. Tags on kbin are just freeform user-defined hashtags.

State poverty levels were also tightly linked with pediatric firearm death rates, the study found.

The goal of the copyleft movement (which overlaps heavily with the free software movement) is to carve out an intellectual commons that can’t be re-enclosed. This commons is important for a number of reasons, including that it tends to be better for end-users of software in the sense that anti-features can’t really gain a foothold. It does not automatically solve UX issues, nor does it stop people from using the knowledge of the commons to do bad things.

Much of the strength of the intellectual commons is that it builds on itself, instead of having to re-invent the same things in a dozen or more different proprietary endeavors. If we were to start a “peace software” movement, it would be incompatible with the commons, due to the restrictions it imposes. Peace software can’t build on copyleft software, and none of the commons can build on peace software. These sorts of things were considered, and compatibility was deemed more important than pushing more specific values. This isn’t a matter of the FSF or OSI standing in the way, it’s just that “peace software” would have to go it alone.

Due to this dynamic, those that want to build “anticapitalist software” would be better served by using the GNU AGPL, rather than a license that restricts commercial use. The AGPL fixes the loophole that the GPL leaves open for network services, and should allow us to carve out a new noncommercial online ecosystem. It should even be used for non-network code, as that code may be repurposed or built upon by network services. I’m glad to see lemmy, kbin, and mastodon using it.

It seems like you think I’m advocating for something that I’m not? “People should be free to choose who they associate with” does not mean “people should not cooperate with each other”.

There are plenty of natural incentives to cooperate, and people mostly do so by default. They just shouldn’t be forced to stay in organizations that abuse them. Being opposed to abusive relationships doesn’t not imply that one is opposed to relationships in general.

Well, I’ve never heard of a well-informed anarchist either, so there you go.

They just don’t understand any of the basics of organisation.

It sounds like you haven’t had much interaction with anarchists beyond maybe high-school, and haven’t read anything that we’ve written.

Also, police organizations complain that anarchist activist groups are too hard to infiltrate because there’s too much reading to do:

Infiltration is made more difficult by the communal nature of the lifestyle (under constant observation and scrutiny) and the extensive knowledge held by many anarchists, which require a considerable amount of study and time to acquire.

Literally “I can’t blend in with these fucking nerds because they read too much”.

They just base their whole ideology on the delusion that everybody’s just gonna play nice, nobody will want to do anything for their advantage and, cucially, that crime just doesn’t exist.

Our philosophy is centered around dealing with the organized crime of the state and the exploitation of the capitalists. If you generally can’t trust people to play nice, putting a few of them in positions of power tends to make the problem worse, not better.

I wanna see how any anarchist society deals with a murder.

Which aspect of it? Basic security is pretty simple, and there’s a number of ways to provision it. Forensics would be handled by contracting professional specialists. Trials would be handled by a polycentric legal system (as opposed to the monocentric one that we currently have. Punishment would generally be in the form of either restitution paid by the perpetrator to the victim (or next of kin), or exile.

But that’s already much too high for anarchists, who barely understand basic human incentives.

C’mon now, this is just confidentlyincorrect material.

Nobody wants to organize horizontally.

Yet you’re posting this on a rapidly growing horizontally-organized social media system, running on top of a wildly successful, half-century old, horizontally-organized global computer network governed by “rough consensus and running code”. Curious.

Obligatory “I am very smart”

It doesn’t mean that people can’t coordinate, just that the coordination needs to be voluntary. Think networks rather than hierarchies.

It’s similar to how the fediverse is organized. Any instance can defederate from any other for any reason, but we all try to mostly stick together, because there’s benefits to doing so. Those that are dissatisfied with the policies of the instance that they’re on can break off and form their own (ideally we’d have account migration too, but that’ll take time). No one is forced to connect, but the whole thing works regardless.

Well, it’s not infinite. The individual can’t be divided, by definition. But also I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that more land would be required? It doesn’t mean no more high-density housing. You just shouldn’t be forced into an undesirable political association with your neighbors, beyond the practical minimum coordination involved in living in the same building.

Perhaps you’d like to build an 8-bit computer?

The people who generally want to destroy a system and rebuild anew are usually clueless or have an ulterior motive.

It’s worth noting that “destroy and rebuild anew” is a point of contention among anarchists. Some of us favor a revolutionary approach, but some (myself included) favor an “evolutionary” approach instead. Same end goal, just achieved through steady incremental change, rather than a big upheaval.

In practice though, success likely wouldn’t fall cleanly into either category. There’d be incremental change punctuated by occasional (smaller) upheavals. But I guess all social change happens like that, really.