Can we please agree not to call apples "oranges" just because we like how "oranges" sound, and we also happen to like apples?
These are different kinds of fruit, and calling one using the name for the other is simply misleading.
Same with "anti-capitalist licenses" being called "open-source licenses".
They're not. They're different. The difference matters - if it didn't, there would be no reason not to use open-source licenses!
@bookwyrm is not "open source" (doesn't mean bad!):
Bookwyrm's license is *not* OSI-approved.
Again, that doesn't necessarily mean it's "bad". But it does, in fact, mean it's not open-source.
@dhfir @vyivel @bookwyrm and this is exactly the same argument that Microsoft and plenty of random techbro startups were making about their own "source-available" licenses, of which there were plenty (each worse than the previous one).
Either terms have meaning, or they don't. If they don't, we cannot communicate. If they do, then Bookwyrm is not open-source.
And yet again, this is not a value-judgement on Bookwyrm. We just need to have clarity when we discuss complicated stuff like software licensing.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!