OSI was literally started by the leeching megacorps (look at their list of sponsors this is not some grand conspiracy) to shame people away from creating more fair licenses.
They are already angry enough that they had to consider AGPL as open source because it meets all their criteria.
If OSI wanted to adjust their definition to exclude copyleft licenses, they could easily do so, it would not even be particularly hard to argue as a position. But open-source does include free software, even if not the other way around.
When I got hired by a very big conglomerate here in Sweden, he said Sweden and Poland are amongts the cheapest in Europe for developer salaries, and I would think devops will be close.
You can easily find a decent devops here (not Google-level, no) for much less than 70k I would say, especially if theyre under 30 or so.
Still, it’s highly location-dependent, and mileage varies drastically between countries.
I’m an SWE with a background in maths and CS in Croatia, and my annual comp is less than what you claim here. Not drastically, but comparing my comp to the rest of the EU it’s disappointing, although I am very well paid compared to my fellow citizens. My SRE/devops friends are in a similar situation.
I am always surprised to see such a lack of understanding of economic differences between countries. Looking through Indeed, a McDonald’s manager in the US makes noticeably more than anyone in software in southeast Europe.
Being able to stay compliant and protect revenue is worth far more than quibbling over which cloud costs a little less or much a monthly salary for an employee is in various countries.
The real ratio to look at is cloud spend vs. the revenue.
For me, switching from AWS to European providers wasn’t just about saving on cloud bills (though that was a nice bonus). It was about reducing risk and enabling revenue. Relying on U.S. hyperscalers in Europe is becoming too risky — what happens if Safe Harbor doesn’t get renewed? Or if Schrems III (or whatever comes next) finally forces regulators to act?
If you want to win big enterprise and governmental deals, Then you got to do whatever it takes and being compliant and in charge is a huge part of that.
Gastroparesis is literally the method of action of GLP1 agonists. It slows gastric motility. Gastroparesis is literally slowed motility of the stomach (where 20% of food stays in your stomach after 4 hours). It doesn't matter why, that is the literal diagnostic criteria, ergo it literally causes gastroparesis.
I'm sure the brain damage that COVID still causes (there are 3x more cases this year than in 2020, fun fact) is more of a danger to kids than staying home.
Well, you just didn't look hard enough, this is from literally the last thread about Asahi before this one. Pretty much every single post about Asahi Linux on HN has transphobic comments.
That's from a newly made account (green name), and it's flagged so it's not visible to most users (including me). There's no forum in the world with open sign ups that can prevent a few assholes from joining.
> Ah yes the totally unbiased OSD made by companies wanting to exploit free labor like Amazon.
The OSD does not originate with Amazon. Its ideas and text are drawn from the free software movement and indeed from a not-for-profit, volunteer-driven, community-based project-- namely Debian. Its text is essentially lifted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The term 'open-source' was created to describe an effort by a commercial entity, though-- for the project that would eventually give us Firefox, at a time when the web was dominated by a deeply proprietary monopoly in Internet Explorer.
But all of this should be common knowledge among 'hackers'. At any rate it is extremely easy to discover.
> prescriptivist language
Talk about knowing enough to be dangerous! lol.
> I will continue calling things open source whenever I can see the source code, no matter the license.
Okay? You are successfully resisting being nagged about your use of terms. You are also broadcasting your ignorance of the giants whose shoulders software developers stand upon today.
Software, like many things that can satisfy human needs and wants, is an instrument and mechanism of power. In particular, software and the terms under which it is distributed are often a mechanism by which the software publishers exert power and control over the software's users. 'Open-source', like its more frank ancestor 'free software', exists to signal terms of software distribution that variously protect users from certain strategies of domination by software vendors. Historically (and recently!), that signal associated with the phrase 'open-source' has been a fairly clear (if simplistic) one, because the phrase's usage has been consistent.
When you choose how you will or won't use the phrase 'open-source', you are making a choice about how useful a signal that phrase will be for such purposes in the future. What language is 'correct' in this case gets at a practical and political question we can alternatively get at without any commitment or appeal to a notion of linguistic correctness. That question is this: should there be ready ways to identify terms of software distribution that seek to spare software users from domination by software suppliers?
If one's answer to that is 'yes', then it takes a bit of footwork to get to 'I intend to participate in applying this established safety label to unsafe things'.
> calling things open source whenever I can see the source code
This kind of behavior is arguably a predictable outcome of the strategy of distancing the licensing tactics of the free software movement from that movement's explicit politics, articulations of its on motivations, etc.
Seriously — the US and Europe have not been in a remotely "natural" condition since over a century before I was born. Even the air we breathe is significantly different from its natural condition.
They are already angry enough that they had to consider AGPL as open source because it meets all their criteria.