smug prick.
I was going for sarcasm, but i can see the interpretational difference.
I suppose game recognises game.
"On this site, they are one and the same." sounds like something a condescending, smug prick might say as an opener.
but by all means, tell me more about what everyone on this public forum thinks.
TL;DR;
Sounds like a bunch of organisational issues using licensing as a scapegoat.
Again, not giving an opinion on FOSS licencing pro's and cons, just on the implementation of licensing in general.
My issue with viral licensing is that it means you got to rewrite the code or use another product.
Or...comply with the licence.
but yes, that's entirely the intention of a licence.
You can use this thing as long as you adhere to the rules set forth, if you don't want to then feel free to create your own or find something with a licence more to your liking.
They aren't forcing this on you, using these products is optional.
Also software bom is a hassle.
Absolutely.
However, that feels more like a procurement/evaluation issue.
e.g : "is bringing in this open source, viral GPL audio processing library worth the trade-off of dealing with the compliance vs paying money for a similar commercial product (or building our own)"
Some advanced manufacturing techniques rely on advanced software. So does infrastructure which is often only secured by obscurity. Also all software is filled with vulnerabilities which can get easier to exploit if you have access to the source code.
That sounds again like a person or persons have royally fucked up their evaluation/procurement duties when selecting the components to use in the building of the product a, quality/security/systems design issue rather than a licensing one.
if complying with an open source license causes a product to become a danger to the public, many people, at many stages, have utterly failed to do their job.
Also,i'm sure you know this, but security through obscurity is a poor systems design choice in almost all scenarios.
As you say though, it does happen in the real world.
In those cases someone needs to wear the grown up hat and evaluate the options available, such as removing or replacing the component that requires opening up your source code, or evaluating the trade off of how severe a risk opening up the source code is vs the costs involved in replacing it, or even the potential legal liability of just ignoring the licence.
If you can't afford any options then your product isn't viable ( in an "everybody follows the rules" kind of scenario, at least).
Im not expressing an opinion on the viral nature of the licence itself, nor the pros and cons of FOSS, nor am I a FOSS evangelist of any kind.
But you understand it's optional right? if you don't like it, don't use it.
This isn't some gotcha, you can literally decide not to use the thing under the licence you don't like. That will solve 100% of the problems you are describing (though it sounds like it'd introduce new, non-licence based problems in whatever example you are thinking of)
Well... I say that, but im actually not sure what you mean by "dangerous to the public", if you could go in to a bit more detail about what you mean there, I'd appreciate it
You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?
Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.
Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.
Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints
I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn't an asset it's probably not a great idea to get caught lying.
I will say though, having been employed, the ability to "gracefully massage" the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.
Cheating is absolutely a sellable skill.
Assuming you are asking genuinely, here's an answer.
Q wasn't created as a result of V's(or P's) intolerance, it's a specialisation of a larger group, P.
P and Q aren't mutually exclusive, you can be both.
V can and do enjoy both P and it's subgenre/offshoot Q.
If you don't understand in general why larger social groups might sometimes give rise to more specilaised subgroups or offshoots (for reasons other than exclusion) then any answer you receive is not going to make sense to you.
Incidentally, the same explanation works for the cooking show example, as it's the same basic premise.
I'm not the person who replied to you but I'm fairly confident that person was mimicking your phrasing with an example they thought was simpler for you to understand, in order for you to see how it sounded incorrect.
It seems you didn't get the context of that, which is probably why it seemed like an odd reply.
in contextual translation:
If television viewers were accepting of cooking then why did they have to create a subgenre of cooking shows?
becomes
In the same way that cooking shows exist as a sub-genre of TV shows in general without requiring broadcasters to have first banned cooking on TV , queercore can exist without requiring punk to have first been intolerant of it's LGBTQIA+ members.
Condensing english prick comedian?
Probably Ricky Gervais
i'm of the opinion that if someone has done their best* ^[a good faith best effort, considering the circumstances] to consider the consequences of an approach and chooses to take that approach while accepting the potential outcomes, then that is an acceptable decision making process.
In some cases escalation might be a potential outcome and as long as the person understands that, then them choosing that option is their considered choice.
In the same way that freedom of speech* ^[the general idea not the US specific thing] isn't freedom from consequences, freedom of choice isn't freedom from other peoples choosing to act against you.
If you want to make what seems like a poor choice from my point of view, i might advise against it, but ultimately it's up to you.
However, i'm also free to try and stop you if that's what i choose. In this case i'm not looking to curtail your choices, but i am pitting my choice against yours.
The difference is in the potential for creep.
The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.
AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who's identity is verified in the app.
What's to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it's been issued ?
As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said "over 18", you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.
I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.
Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn's weren't widespread enough to be a problem.
Skip to now and they've got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn't and can't work the way they want.
A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.
Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.
I'm not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.
People are people, manage your expectations accordingly.
These kinds of federated services were never meant to be better than reddit in a content sense, all they do is provide a system in which the possibility of a subjectively better platform was possible.
More simply, federated services are about federation/decentralisation.
The idiomatic solution to the problem you're describing is either to:
start your own federated instance, with the prerequisite amount of hookers and blackjack, but also sufficient rules and moderational enforcement to adhere to your expectations of what a better reddit looks like.
or
find an instance that already does this and join it.
This is a thing that is possible in a federated service, which is the actual difference between reddit and lemmy/piefed etc