The best part of the blogpost: They are going to invest even more next year.
Last week, the budget committee of the Bundestag decided to increase the Sovereign Tech Fund’s allocation by €4 million for next year. We’re honored and thankful for the German Parliament’s recognition of the importance of open source technologies, and for their continued trust in our work.
That they leased
Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?
Sort of. The Idea is that people should be able to run their own servers, but developers wouldn’t need to give out their code. All you need is the server binary. After all server software is just that software, just like the client and they don’t need to give out the source code for that for you to run the game. Alternatively they could patch the game so it’s peer-to-peer. (and yes in this case that would be unreasonable as the game is not successful enough to even break even)
The initiative is so ambiguous (to the extend that it is - I’d argue that it’s a lot clearer than many people claim) because it’s not actually legal text. It’s not supposed to be. All it should do is describe the problem and explain why the problem falls under EU jurisdiction. Everything else is supposed to be handled by EU lawmakers after the initiative has met it’s signature goal.
There is another downside. The local and global feeds are potent discovery tools. But they only work if you group people with similar interests onto the same instance. Your proposal assumes a certain amount of homogeneity. If everyone is interested in the same content anyway then yes you can distribute it randomly. But all the people interested in Linux memes are already here. If we are to expand our reach we need to have instances catering to other interests.
And it also doesn’t work with international communities. German speakers for example go to feddit.org, precisely because that’s where German content is going to be amplified via the local feed and therefore easier to discover (for people an that particular instance)
(even including countries which have already passed the threshold, I’m assuming).
You assume correctly
It’s a term that goes back to the cold war. There was a strike and the Soviet Union ended it violently by rolling tanks into the city. This put communists all over the world into a bit of a dilemma: on one side of the conflict was the working class making their opinion known (a communist value) and on the other the Soviet Union (the good guys). So whose side should they take?
It was British communists who coined the term “tankie” for those who defended the SUs actions to brand them as “fake communists” who are more interested in identity politics (the good guys did it, therefore it’s OK) than the plight of the working class.