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

@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.

@tindall

Apart from their own policy issue, which I agree with you on, there’s nothing in the agpl which requires them to give you their improvements, except in the particular case of making it available to others over a network.

If they use it wholly internally, they don’t have to release anything.

As you say, it’s important not to use permissive licences, but we need to be realistic about the benefits of restrictive licences.

@dankwraith @garbados @jalcine

@dgold @tindall @dankwraith @garbados

Is it possible to have both in a license? A permissive but restrictive (opting for public good over silo-consolidated gain?)

@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 :)

@garbados

Ooooooh, thank you very much, I missed that during the week.

I’m excited to go have a look at it.

I previously found the copyfarleft license, but that effort appears to have died in the late noughts, sadly.

// @jalcine @tindall @dankwraith

@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 :)

Follow

@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?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
⛧ MOYTURA ⛧

Moytura. Destroy the old gods.