I don’t mind moderators having their ideas or even ranting or even blowing off some steam in the thread they make/parecipate in.

Their moderating job is to avoid the community being drowned in spam/scam etc. and as far as I can see there are few to no spam posts in !opensource@lemmy.ml. In that particular thread they went wild but as far as I can see did not abuse their mod powers.

tl;dr: judge the moderator as the moderator, and the user as a user. I didn’t particularly like that thread too, but from moderating POV, I haven’t yet seem something by haui I disagree with.

Excellent writeup!

I had the pleasure to try the client last week and it felt clean and responsive!

I am happier when I see copyleft but let’s be honest, I would contribute to an interesting, useful project regardless of their choice between MIT and GPL. Same for companies: some prefer MIT, but there is no way they are not going to contribute to the Linux Kernel just because of copyleft. So bottom line is: make something that people enjoy/find useful and see contributors flocking.

CLAs are a different matter: I do not contribute to projects which ask you to assign them copyright unless I 100% trust the organisation behind them.

As a contributor, I never particularly cared about permissions if I participate in a project with a few patches. It becomes useful when you are diagnosing a CI problem, etc. and you need to push a lot of tweaks to discover where the bug is located.

More generally, treat contributors like you want to be treated. Try to be responsive, compassionate, guide them through the process of having a PR merged, be ready to fix a minor mess or two, congratulate them on a job well done.

Open development is as much a story of people as a story of code.

Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand?

Yes, it is only a viable business model in the end if it generates enugh revenues to cover materials and labour, like every business on planet Earth.

I am sorry to say some of what you write is not correct.

Red Hat — I know they had their slice of controversies lately, but still — is a ≃33bn USD company, how is that not making money? They sell solutions based on OSS (different from selling software!), which is one viable way of making money.

Other ways are: selling support, selling licence exceptions (when you are the sole copyright holder of the codebase, MySQL did that), sponsored development for new features, SaaS (bad!), customization for big enterprises/public actors, open-sourcing software but keeping assets proprietary (some games do that), and many more.

File an issue in their repos, sometimes people (understandably) do not understand licencing very well — or it might be they were granted an exception.

If that fails you can contact the library author and the repositories who host the code.

Great suggestions in this discussion! Rather than adding my favourites, I will add some resources that list more games.

• Libregamewiki: it is really comprehensive (sometimes too much, including even not-so-good-games). They care about licencing and is is very easy to browse, top-notch for me.
• Open source games: a more relaxed repository, with lots of material.
• bobeff open source list: this is curated, which means that there are not so many games but each and every one is stable, good, maintained.
• Arcane Cache: a fantastic blog with reviews of libre games — or more precisely, underground games, there is a lot of discussion on how gamedevving philosophy too. The reviews are always in-depth and allow you to experience the games on another level, and each game is a small jewel in its category. Strongly recommended!