- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- opensource@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/18408267
On Open Source and the Sustainability of the Commons par Ploum - Lionel Dricot.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s short but to the point, use AGPL and the problem is capitalism.
Why not use a license that prevents capitalist firms from even using the software?
Non commercial licenses aren’t considered FOSS licenses.
Such a license would allow commercial use by worker cooperatives. I understand that software freedom as it has been defined excludes such licenses, but I would argue that this position is wrong. There is nothing unfree about preventing firms based on workplace autocracy from exploiting the commons and the workers that work on the commons and the workers in their own firms @linux
They’ll use it anyway.
It sounds flippant, but it’s the truth. They’ll use it internally. They’ll expose it to the outside but delete all of the license information. They’ll use it but stick a crappy React front-end in front of the rest (whether or not that counts as “using AGPL licensed software in violation of the license” is a matter for lawyers to figure out). Or they’ll just use it because they have way more money than the AGPL-licensed project and drag it out in court for however long it takes.
What I am suggesting is using a license that disallows capitalist firms completely from using the software not AGPL, which still allows them to use the software as long as they provide source code. In other words, copyfarleft that only extends use rights to non-capitalist commons-based economic entities-like worker coops. The project can then dual license to capitalist firms charging them for the right to use the software. This would give them a source of funding to fund any legal fights @linux
I get that, but it won’t help. That was one of the motivations behind the AGPL, and it hasn’t really worked for all the reasons I gave. Work for enough companies and you see it over and over again.
@drwho The difference in my mind is that AGPL doesn’t come with a builtin business model to fund the legal fights when they become necessary. Such a copyfarleft license does by charging capitalist firms a licensing fee for using the software. These funds can then be used for paying project developers and funding license enforcement for those that choose to use the software without paying the licensing fee @linux
I ask from a position of ignorance, because I simply don’t know: Has anyone actually done this? Has it worked?
Not yet.
Copyfarleft has not had a whole movement built up around it, and no one has standardized the licenses.
This is a good, short read. For those who are unfamiliar with the AGPL license that the author proposes we all start using, the main difference (and I am not a lawyer) is that under the AGPL, the source code including any modifications must also be made available to all users interacting with the software over a network. This prevents companies from making proprietary versions of AGPL software that are only accessible as a web service, which is one of the big ways that corporations are able to profit from GPL source code contributions these days.
I started using GitHub before Microsoft bought it, what should I be using instead? GitLab? Codeberg? Something else?
I think Codeberg is totally open as opposed to GitLab which has an open core and paid enterprise version. There’s also SourceHut but you have to pay to use it (no free tier).
As far as I know there aren’t any public Forgejo instances.(Codeberg is Forgejo)I think any of these are better than GitHub (I say as I still use GitHub).
I might be mistaken, but I think Codeberg is the official public Forgejo instance.
Affirmative, Codeberg is the “official” public Forgejo instance and the organization which contributes the most to Forgejo development.
Thanks, edited!
How about Gitea?
Forgejo is a fork of Gitea. https://lwn.net/Articles/963095/
Very interesting read.
I also like how, at the end, it changed perspective to say “actually, our problem is not software, but politics”.
We must be aware of what agents we encourage and discourage through our actions.
