tactics must shift with the times. "free software" was a valuable resistance against the commercialization of software as it existed at the time and produced many useful and valuable projects, but now it is simply used as a method of wage evasion for some of the most profitable entities that have ever existed in human history
@dankwraith ahhhhh thissss
@garbados @dankwraith I think it's critical to recall that open source =/= free software. This is a big reason I license most of my stuff AGPL. Yes, the code is out there for Amazon/Google/Facebook to see, but their own corporate policies require that they don't use it, and if they do, they have to give me back all their improvements.
Don't use permissive licenses and this ceases to be a problem.
@jalcine @dgold @tindall there’s the CSL (cooperative software license) that @dankwraith linked the other day (can’t find a link right now, my apartment lacks internet) which seemed interesting: iirc it scopes commercial use to worker coops, not-for-profits, and another exception i can’t recall. i’ve only read partway through the license atm, would be interested in your thoughts :)
Maybe I proposed this before to you, and if so, sorry.
I'm considering to further simplify it and making it stricter (no right granted to non-human entities).
It's short but non-conventional so it requires a careful read. It grants a fifth freedom: self-hosting of whole apps.
As for the #HackingLicense: there are several reasons why software IS a #human thing (see http://www.tesio.it/2018/10/11/math-science-and-technology.html for an insight) and Human is defined recursively to include any evolution of the specie (and asserting brotherhood among them).
It's universe-wide because I think the human #curiosity (and our planet issues) will force us to cooperate to reach the stars.
So it's as future proof as I want it: to a future where people are #hackers.
@dgold @tindall @dankwraith @jalcine @garbados the copyfarleft licence is meant for non functional works (it's the cc-by-sa-nc with the nc clause modified). the authors argue that software is a mean of production and copyleft already exploits capitalist need of ever cheaper machinery while making it free for everyone.
Copyfarleft is for works as commodities, thus making them free for everyone but capitalists to profit from. Maybe we need a copyfarleft clause for software licenses, afaict the "commons" clause is still weird for such strategy
I'll read the hack license, I didn't knew about it :)
@f @dgold @tindall @dankwraith @jalcine @garbados Creative Commons licences are made up of parts (NC, SA, BY etc). Maybe we need a new part "DO", for "democratic only". Ie you can only use this if you are a democratically run organisation (private people alone are fine obv). So coops are OK. A local sports club is OK. Capitalist businesses are not, military is not.
What do you think?
@ebel @tindall @dankwraith as i understand it, source is closed by default under US copyright, under reasoning like: no one is inherently entitled to a thing but its own maker. providing no license doesn’t meaningfully prevent corpers from using it, and creates a legal trap for everyone else (who are technically stealing it)
@dankwraith Free software was never anticommercial. Quite the opposite, getting paid for writing software was always a right defended by free software advocates, and both FSF and OSI agree that a license that forbids commercial use (i.e. using or distributing the software for money) is not acceptable.
Copyleft licenses tend to be quite clear about this: the copyleft only extends to the people you decide to distribute the software to. You don't have an obligation to give access to freeloaders.
@dankwraith I always viewed the GPL as egalitarian. You want to take the software? Then you have to pay it forward. No freeloading allowed.
Oh, so this is the discourse everyone is subtooting.
But yeah, all the woke sustainability talk in FOSS now isn't about corps using stuff made by others, but that corp FOSS authors tend to be the ones that get paid, that confs tend to rely on corp sponsorship, etc.
That's a *very* different analysis.
OSI was born to remove annoying ethics from Free Software and to turn it into a fantastic marketing tool able to attract free labor.
FSF relation with the market is more complex: allowing commercial exploitation of FS was functional to spread it's values first, to fund it's development second.
Neither ever realized that software is a form of free expression and power, and that shouldn't be restricted by companies.
@dankwraith The Open Source movement's goal was to make "Free Software", with a specific political goal, palatable for business. In doing so they sold the idea that people would spend their free time developing other people's commercial products.
Free Software has never claimed this. We fight for Freedom on the grounds of freedom.
@dankwraith In addition, Free Software is (and always will be) a necessary requirement for a Free digitally connected society. It's not the only requirement, but its a fundamental requirement.
The Lamp Institute is an educational institution for those who have felt the drawn of its warm, soft light. The lamp is good. All hail the Lamp.