Some people at .world dont know what they are talking about and thats ok. Lots of people there also dont know much of the queer terms we use here, and thats also ok.

If e.g. someone thinks "cisgender" is an insult, or exclusivly describes a queer person, that doesnt change the actual use, even if the mistake is common(like i have seen with "cisgender").

So I think the definition is fine. If you can imagine the person in question defending brutal, oppressive actions of a State with a red flag, they are a tankie. And if someone self identifies as "tankie" then im not sure that id like to converse with them anyway, other then to get them to change their mind. And thats what this rule is for.

And lastly, infilitrating leftist spaces is the favorite activity of many tankies ive encountered back on reddit, many subs were "tankiefied" because of this. It does happen, sadly.

I prefer the "no tankie" rule, all it means is if you identify as tankie, you are not welcome. Which filters out a lot of problematic behavior.

You could edit the post, because right now its just misinformation.

its not near, but im sure some companies will claim they have it(and then get sued)

This is an extremely important tool for moderating large forums, thank you for working on this! This is one of those mod tools that some people may need to enable large scale moderated federated forums!

Just to clarify, licenses are free software or open source when they fit the definition of those terms, aka the 4 freedoms and whatever open source requires, but both require being able to use the software without restrictions. So this isnt open source.

Well, we are in the lemmy subforum named "open source" so its implied.

Lots of "source available" licenses have a clause that a few years after development stops it becomes open source. Thing is, software with those clauses have existed for years now, and I dont know of a single case where it actually came into effect. Its very easy to have a minor patch every four years to prevent the license change, and if the devs of the software actually wanted to open source it, they would have done so whenever they wanted instead of only promising it. Clauses like that are supposed to combat abandonware, but abandonware does not usually happen because someone forgot the software existed, its a conscious choice to not release the source.

Its a small company without VC, seems ok so far. Chinese track record for open sourcing things isnt too good because chinese courts dont care about the GPL I think, however they sound like linux enthusiasts, so Im optimistic.

Do you have btrfs? It might be time to rollback until an update fixes the issue.

TRITT

I get the feeling that whoever originally made this wasnt entirely serious...