Not sure it warranted the "dumb" mention in the title. Still it's likely a good idea to have a list of the ways projects can die.

Weird decisions, this is really backwards...

Indeed, a reminder that the two concepts are not necessarily aligned. It kind of misses the point about corporate Open Source with no open contributions which can be easily captured as well. But indeed for the individual side project you might not need the whole burden of issues and contributions, you get to choose.

This piece is strongly worded but the logic is sound. We see many examples of power plays in guise of "innovation" which lead to killing openly sharing (and so killing real innovation). It's urgent to fight back and ensure things stay open.

It totally makes sense. If you're a FOSS project you have to invest in getting more long term contributors, which requires mentoring. The contributions themselves are not something to maximise. I wish more communities would follow that path.

Looks like some governments noticed that they can move away from GitHub and are testing the waters. Good idea!

This is indeed time to move away from GitHub if you're still there. There are many viable alternatives.

Good first half of the post, there's indeed more paths out of GitHub than jumping from a centralised system to another one (even though Codeberg and Forgejo are much saner from a governance standpoint). We'll see what the future brings.

The FSF is now weighting in on the Euro-Office vs OnlyOffice situation. You have to respect the spirit of the AGPL and can't take away freedom with extra clauses. Seems to make sense to me.

Can crates.io make things easier to secure? I do think so. But this post is right that we shouldn't forget the social aspect of the whole supply chain security conversation.

Well, what can I say? This is excellent news and I'm excited to see it happen. Let's hope more governments do the same. It'll take a while of course, so we'll have to be patient.

You'd wish more projects would put such measures in place.

I personally think this is where it'll head after the bubble pops. We should be able to recover enough material to have something viable to run locally. The question will be "where the updated models come from?", it might be the public sector helping there and hopefully those will be truly FOSS and ethical (like Apertus).

This is an account of how dark things can become when you align your identity with your contributions. Stay healthy, stay safe!

Let's help them help us. There are a few things to have in place for governments to be able to pay maintainers.

Yes, we have lots of layers nowadays. But you can read them to figure out when something doesn't work like you expect. This is one of the most important skills of the trade.

Excellent piece, indeed legal is not the same as legitimate. More often than not the law is lagging behind and things might be wrongly "fixed" at a later date. In that interval that's when our communities need to build its own tools to protect the commons. We're clearly reaching such an inflection point. Interestingly, I think there's is a difference of reaction between the people with a Free Software culture and the ones with an Open Source culture.

We should indeed put an end to those proprietary formats. It's sad to see the EU Commission contradict itself there.

Clearly the author is angry and he has every right to be. By closing platforms and fighting against tinkering, the big tech companies try to kill of the power user and hacker cultures. By letting this happen we all loose as a society.

Kind of resonate oddly with the string of talks I gave talking about craftsmanship a decade ago. Looks like FOSS communities at large have no choice but get inspired by such old practice.