This will be up at least a day before the rule is put in place, and I’ll keep the post up for the week for discussion in case there are clarifications that become apparent, so feel free to take time in considering it. And if it doesn’t work or needs adjustment after, it can always be revisited too.

And it shouldn’t stop any sort of discussion - its the promo thats the issue, exactly.

I’m not sure I understand their complaint either. The first comment was about something not impacted at all by the rule, and the second was about floss being hard to define (its not)? Trying to get clarity here but I think I’m missing something with their concern, I don’t see it.

Just to mention, f/loss with a paywall is already not exempt per the rule.

Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision.

I’m taking an amalgam of the comments in the meta thread to rewrite for a singular rule. Of course it has my take in it. Which is why I use the word “proposed” - just like with rule 3 which was the cause of drama a few weeks ago, I put my proposed version out there, it saw some mild revision, now its in place.

but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be.

I firmly disagree. The work is custodial, not dictatorial.

I do, however, think it’s a mistake to lean heavily toward favoring FOSS here because, as I mentioned, there is nothing preventing FOSS applications from making money. Further, it is very difficult to find software that is 100% FOSS through and through.

At which time as it becomes a problem it can be evaluated.

That said, it isn’t hard to check the license being used (or licenses if it ties to multiple models), and the FSF has a great definition of f/loss. Can it meet the requirements to be f/loss and someone still make money? Yes.

Does that make a post about it an ad?

No.

If you think this is about what I want, you haven’t been reading any of my comments.

This comes out of what the community commented in the meta thread, with a bit of my own wording on top to meet the requests.

Also

I’d like to know that so I can find or start a similar community where ppl who do use closed source tools can post questions.

That isn’t promotional material and would have nothing to do with this rule, so I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.

I tweaked things a bit to be more about percentage of comments/posts, which I think may be a better approach, in a newly posted sticky so we can memorialize the change. Its not implemented yet, and we can go back to an age-of-account approach, but I think % participation may make more sense.

So lets get specific on rules, and break it down and turn your post into one:

• Closed source commercial applications may not be posted from an account less than 7 days old or they will be removed.

Now what about mostly open but with a paywall on features (so partially closed)?

I’m happy to have a rule change here, I just think it needs to be a clear rule and community supported. If you’d like I can make it a pinned post to be voted/commented on.

Personally? I have zero interest in that happening. As I’ve said before, I consider myself the janitor not the dictator.

It would be selfhosting related, of primary relevance as a lot of folks use it still despite… everything plex has done in the past several years, and I would not be able to consider it a rule violation as of now.

There would need to be a new rule or a change to the existing.

Nothing before I started moderating, and as of now nothing either.

Again, I’m sharing what I’m doing to check and see if its blatant spam and nothing more. Anything else would mean a rule change, which is always open for discussion from the community, as I’ve mentioned.

I’ll point out #2 has also resulted in numerous reports, including for #3.

Thats only partially accurate btw. I see this comment often lately so I think its worth clarifying.

If its wholly generated, then it is not copy protected, and its in the public domain. If it has human guidance (beyond entering prompts, and actually editing the code), it is. Note that this is also in the US only, and obviously subject to change. I’m not personally sure of the consideration of copyright elsewhere.

I don’t think getting the rules cleaned up makes things harder - if anything I think it makes things easier.

This has gotten a ton of votes, and I’m in agreement that new accounts that have only posted about their paid app should be considered spam, and I would say a timed ban (maybe a week?) would be a good start.

Now what about open source vs paid? Devs who made something may just think “oh I should share it on selfhosted!” On their freshly made fediverse account. Does open source get the same treatment? I’d lean toward no, but some of these projects have a paid component as well - paid hosting, or a license upgrade, or whatever.

I think its fine that they want to make some money, and I’m personally more positive toward a hosted option than a paywall, but its a finer point to navigate than just “paid vs open”.

That said, I do see a problem with comments on some posts as well - a reply with “spam” and no report is not helpful. The comment itself isnt helpful. A downvote and report is.

So I think a clear and concise set of rules would be helpful, and maybe with a separate list for fully open source and no paid component, open with a paid component, and a fully closed (paid or not, because we all know where the profit comes from in this scenario).

I’d personally lean toward something like an account xx days old to be able to self-promote, and tags for each type of post.

Thats not a single item list but a combo, as you know I’ve only recently taken over here, and as I’ve repeatedly said all rules are subject to change based on community input. Its only been about 2 weeks now (and a particularly busy week for me this past one) so I haven’t posted another yet as I couldn’t give it appropriate attention last week.

So let’s clarify the rules then, I’m all for it.

I’ve only more recently taken over here as a result of the previous mod being overzealous on Rule 3, I commented on a better approach, they rage quit and made me and another person mod. There were quite a few clearly relevant projects that got removed, and obviously yours fit in that territory. You can see the currently stickied post about rule 3 here in the community for reference.

So I agree that clarification needs to happen. Right now I’m applying the rules in the lightest way possible, trying to remove only spam right now because the rules are extremely generic and subjective.

My only ‘thing’ would be that I don’t consider this my community to hand down rules from on high, which is why I have encouraged people to make posts like this one so there can be community consensus.

LOVE the discussion folks, and @[email protected] you beat me to it, this has been bothering me all week.

I would love to see a consensus come out of this, maybe do a vote on wording/requirements? Idk, still working on figuring out the best approach.

Just a thanks for exactly the meta threads I hoped for.

As I’m doing things right now, closed source, paid, and the only thing posted is getting removed as spam. Unfortunately a common time seems to be about 7am GMT (side note - folks who are on around that time and can help with modding then, please reach out) and I’m not on for a good few hours at a minimum.

That said, I always read and check, sometimes deferring to read again and check the profile when I have more time later.

What I’m looking for at the moment is:

• Are people asking questions to see if this is crap being peddled for a profit? Is OP answering? (And thanks again to the folks who do follow up with great questions that dig into this right away)
• Does it read like a post from a person?
• How old is the account?
• How many other posts have they made? Where and what about?

That kind of stuff. Sometimes its super easy to spot (3 posts, same title, price and it being cloud only, etc), sometimes its not and takes more looking.

I think paid products can have a place here, despite them not being my kind of thing, but more as a discussion.

So if there is some degree of consensus on a good rule, I would suggest making a post about it so we can finalize, like I did for the rule 3 updates.

And if anyone has an idea on a useful option for a voting style solution for things like this, I’d love for a DM so I can check it out.

Just going to say that to me its a community decision. I’m the janitor here, thats all.

This is actually a post that beat me to the punch, and in glad it did. This is a discussion that needs to be had.

I had the Apex AD-5131, a 3 disc changer/player that was great for VCD and SVCD. Especially because you could go with a higher quality and go for multiple s/vcd’s and it would autochange to the next, so clever splitting meant a change of disc at a fadeout wipe.

… Yes.