In September the NixOS constitutional assembly should finish their work, and the community will be able to elect governance. I’m guessing that’s when the drama will start getting resolved.

In the meantime, there are multiple maintainers that have left because of the drama - which is more troublesome than the board members leaving - but nixpkgs has a LOT of maintainers, and there are new ones joining all the time. It’s still healthy and won’t implode so quickly.

They are major concerns, but they aren’t the only reasons people would use Linux, and also not everyone who uses Linux does it for these reasons. For example, while I care about them, my most important reason for using it is utility features such as my tiling WM.

That only works if the main reason someone uses Linux is personal privacy.

OK. They have a brain to feel them with. If you’re objecting to imprecise terminology here, I’ll give you the point, but I don’t think that affects my basic point any (I’m not a biologist, I meant insects and the like - though don’t take that as definitive either; maybe someone knows an insect with a brain, too).

Not three same person, but the demarcation between what should be OK to eat, and what - not - they baked most sense to me, is the capacity to experience pain or emotions.

So I see no substantial moral difference between eating plants or invertebrates, for example - neither can feel harm.

That said, fish and chicken can experience pain or emotions the same as cows and pigs.

OSHA and other safety stuff…

The biggest issue is that there isn’t a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they’re already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.

upcoming EU AI Act that regulates open source systems differently, creating an urgent need for practical openness assessment

So when they say “openness” they do put it in the context of open source rather accessibility.

Because FOSS shouldn’t add burdens. You publish your work and let everyone else use it. That shouldn’t add extra obligations on you. Usually, you’d also write some docs - after all, without them nobody will know how to use your program, so why bother publishing - but it shouldn’t be an obligation. Make it easy for people to open up their code without this attaching strings.

Documentation is nice, but it’s kind of different thing that open source: a program can be open and undocumented, or closed but well documented - and I don’t see why we’d want it different for models.

A bunch of these columns are outright absurd TBH, to the extend I’m not sure the author really knows what FOSS is about. What’s open API access even supposed to be - API access is closed by definition.

Also there has never been a requirement that open source software needs to be documented - and for good reason - so I’m not a fan of the documentation column as well.