It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
There are lots of other 
moments there.
"Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"
@[email protected] Let's hear your rant
as it should, because open source software should be free. GNU can shove it.
They are seperate because they both have different motivation, tactics, and origins.
Open source could also be used to describe a development methodology (public repo that accepts pull requests/patches with a license that allows redistribution). Free means that the user is entitled to all 4 freedoms (use, study, modify and distribute, or redistribute).
The Free software movement works to create a world of entirely free software. Open source initiative does not make that claim. OSI is more pragmatics (at a cost) while the FSF is more ideologically focused (likewise)
We have this distinction because it matters and that it reduces confusion.
on the other hand, maybe GNU should shove it? viral licensing is a nice hack, but its not like they're the only community that produces free/open source software. many groups share the objective, even if they don't all agree with the utility or importance of viral clauses. obviously, OSI is pretty much only there to make the concept more palatable to corpos, but i don't see any reason to be loyal to GNU.
I think you're being too reductive. Besides the fact that software packages produced by GNU are historically significant (without GNU there is no OSI or even linux), "viral licensing" is a not a good way to describe copyleft (what would you say about Creative Commons then?) and different forms of copyleft exist.
The GNU Project is not just software, it's a philosophy and political stance about people's right to control their computing. The ultimate aim of the project is to produce a Fully free operating system. People are "loyal" (if we accept that wording) to GNU because they believe in the idea of a completely free operating system that only uses free software.
I'm not here to antagonize you, have whatever personal (albeit critical) opinions about GNU or the FSF or whatever group in the FOSS community as you wish (believe me, I have my own hot takes). I just wanted to point out why the GNU Project is significant if not fundamental to the entire Free software ideology and misconceptions about it.
GNU can absolutely go shove it when they keep trying to shove GPLv3 down my throat.
Open Source is a corporate plot to dilute the meaning of software freedom
Actually, the gnu licenses (gplv3 and agplv3) are the best ones. Incredibly based licenses.
It's why google has stripped any typical userland component away in android and has rewritten or is rewriting everything in the MIT license. So that they can make it proprietary when and where it suits them. And of course they're doing the same for the kernel with Fuchsia.
gpvl3 sucks lol
Increasingly of the opinion that the only acceptable license is Public Domain.