The opensource community needs a worldwide Parliamentarian Group for Digital Sustainability (Parldigi) liks Switzerland has. A group that collects money to lobby for opensource wherever and whenever it can. It should further build a global network with projects and governments to allow analysing and proposing solutions to existing governmental IT problems by using opensource.

If we could get something like this going with worldwide engagement, I'm sure Public Money Public Code could become the standard.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] jarfil 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Like this?

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom

Est. 1985.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The FSF? Is that the one led by the dude who eats his toenails? The one that won't compromise and is opensource or nothing? The one that doesn't have any translations? If so, then that ain't it cuz.

Parldigi was able to compromise to reach a part of their goals and get something this large and important into legislation.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] jarfil 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that autist that's done more in 40 years than anyone else in the world.

The one that doesn't have any translations

Seems to have some translations:

https://fsfe.org/

Parldigi

What is your proposal for a "worldwide" Parliamentary Group? Do we wait to establish a World Parliament, along with a World Government, or is there something we could do in the meantime?

[–] 56_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

FSFE is not the same as FSF. It's a completely independent organisation.

[–] jarfil 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's a "sister organization". Laws are different in different parts of the world, so it makes sense to have different "forks" if you wish.

https://fsfe.org/about/fsfnetwork.en.html

[–] 56_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Yes they share many similarities with the FSF, but they are separate, and have some different viewpoints on things. You can't use something they do as an argument as to why FSF is good, when the actual FSF doesn't do that thing. They also dislike RMS, who is also one of @onlinepersona@programming.dev 's arguments against the FSF.

[–] thingsiplay 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What license do they choose? I clicked though the article to another article (in German) and then to another:

And found this (in German language) part:

Die Software wird unter der sogenannten "Open Source Lizenz GLP V3" allgemein zur Verfügung gestellt.

Is it actually GPLv3 and this is just a typo? Or is this a modified version maybe?

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The law says this:

Soweit möglich und sinnvoll sind international etablierte Lizenztexte zu verwenden. Haftungsansprüche von Lizenznehmern sind auszuschliessen, soweit dies rechtlich möglich ist.

As far as possible and expedient, internationally established licenses are to be used.

That sounds like they're not mandating specific licenses, but the GPL is a reasonable choice

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The only problem is that there are a number of licenses that purport to be open source, but which don't meet established definitions of the term. The license for Grayjay comes to mind. I'd hope that they blacklist certain licenses like that, rather than enforcing a specific one.

[–] StereoTypo 3 points 3 months ago

Huh, I hadn't heard about this. I hope Rossman doesn't think he's above criticism.

[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 months ago

I like it. And any OSS licence model is better than closed IMO. Let's see how it shakes out.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form.

Website doesn't load article contents. Please paste in OP

[–] remington 4 points 3 months ago

I've edited it into the body of the post. https://archive.is/TcoAi