Are there any instances of OSI licensed code that are not Free Software making my statement here invalid?
I was attempting to direct that when software is called Open Source and actually is based on OSI licensed sources, then they are likely talking about Free Software.
The last time I heard a comment along those lines I was attending a session by an Open Source person and up on screen they had a picture of RMS dressed as Che Guevara.
All those silly ethics, they get in the way of the real work!
I'm not sure I fully understand - whilst I agree there's been useful legal work, we now have such a plethora of licenses I ended up having to back what I'd call basic common sense when someone was suggesting using a highly restrictive "community" license that had ridiculous intents such as saying you can't use it in this particular industry because that industry is "bad".
The reason Free/Libre Open Source Software wins - and always will do in the long run - is because the four freedoms are super-simple and they reflect how the natural world works.
Out-of-the-box you've got a responsive theme, built-in accessibility, multilingual capabilities, a security team, and the accumulation of 23 years of tried-and-tested code.
The efforts that are being put into this new product are making it as easy to use as any other CMS, which is a huge leap for Drupal.
Add into the equation things like the new AI initiative (http://dgo.to/artificial_intelligence_initiative) where you can literally configure the site through chat as founder of Drupal, Dries Buytaert, recently demonstrated asking AI to create a categorisation of wine tour events based on the top 20 wine regions (https://bit.ly/wine-tours-taxonomy) I have a feeling that, based on my 21 years of using it, I think Drupal's going to surprise quite a few people over the next year.
I don't just use it as a CMS, I leverage native commerce (http://dgo.to/commerce) and CRM (http://dgo.to/contacts) modules in order to have a fully integrated framework which, architecturally, enables me to create functionality that would be expensive if even possible using separate systems.
>For humanity and the future of software’s sake we need to go back to users of software owning their software, preferably by being free and open source.
I'm in the process of setting up a Community Interest Company to facilitate this very thing. I spent a couple of decades in the world of Drupal, which is the largest open source community in terms of contributors, and have spent the last few years following and supporting the ceptr.org project which is rebuilding the tech stack aligning as to how nature works.
One of CEPTR's subprojects is Holochain.org, a distributed agent-centric open source language, and I'm using https://theweave.social/moss/ which is built on Holochain, to collaborate with my as of current one collaborator who is my support worker, funded by an Access to Work grant as I discovered and was diagnosed last year aged 50 as autistic and ADHD.
Free/Libre Open Source Software can work and be sustainable, it just takes more people getting involved in every aspect of it, and I find the biggest issue there is the majority simply don't know this stuff exists, let alone they can use it and adapt it to their needs.
So times are changing, we have the power, we just give it away every day by not making the most of what we have control over.
Bold would be accusing them of not allowing you to install shit quality kernel drivers in ring0, and then accusing them of negligence when you hose your machine by doing it.
