@dgold About a year ago, I properly heard about co-ops, and it kinda blew my mind. I love the idea that you can do commercial transactions, and not just be shareholder based ownership, where all the the profit/surplus goes to the capital owners

@dgold Many people like the NC part of CC licences, but I think, be OK with someone having ads on their website. Perhaps it's not *commercial* usage which people don't like, but *commerical usage where benefits go to capital*.

Maybe if CC had a "Democractic Organisations Only" (DO) clause, that might be cool.

@ebel @dgold The minute we start to add on morality clauses into our code, we run into terrible issues, many of which have been talked about in the past but are things like "You can't be South African and use this code", or "You can't have ads or accept money".

If we go down this road people could say "No Irish", or "No Jews" or "No Gays". Free Software must be free for absolutely everyone.

@emacsen @dgold @ebel slippery slope is a formal logical fallacy not a guideline

@emacsen I definitely don't support someone adding bigoted restrictions like that.

But BSD licence advocates say GNU licences aren't free, because of the share-alike req. Didn't BSD have an attribution req?

I don't agree with "Pub Domain is the only freedom", so clearly I'm OK with some "restrictions" for something to still be "free".

@dgold @oakreef

@emacsen GNU licence fans say the share-alike licence promotes overall freedom, and the freedom of the user (& I agree with that view).

I'd view a 'no capitalistic exploitation' requirement in a similar vein. Taking a "big picture"/"whole society" view.

@dgold @oakreef

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Moytura. Destroy the old gods.