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.

@garbados @dankwraith Another consideration is to thing about what one is building. This is less effective for infrastructure software, but at least of applications software, consider not building things that are valuable to those you don't want to enrich.


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 :)


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

Maybe I proposed this before to you, and if so, sorry.

But given your considerations I'd like your opinion on the #HackingLicense tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

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.

@Shamar @dgold @tindall @dankwraith @jalcine @garbados (sorry to appear wildly on the thread, I never know if it's bad fediquette)

Why does the hacking license talk about universe-wide rights but then restricts them to humans? It sounds specist now and not future proof :P

@f @dgold @tindall @dankwraith @jalcine @garbados

Do you mean interacting with interesting strangers over the #fediverse (that posted themselves in a public international network open to feedbacks by design) can be considered bad #netiquette?

To me, you are welcome. 😉


@f @dgold @tindall @dankwraith @jalcine @garbados

As for the #HackingLicense: there are several reasons why software IS a #human thing (see tesio.it/2018/10/11/math-scien 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 :)


It’s that free to all except capitalists which appeals so strongly to me.

The cpl which @dankwraith linked to is a more software oriented version of the bare copy far left license. It’s really interesting (and exciting) to me.

The commons clause does not do what you are suggesting here. I embarrassed myself mightily a few weeks ago when I thought it did.

It may be worth taking another look at the cpl and it’s specific anti capitalist language, seeing if that can be simply patterned onto the gpl.

@garbados @jalcine@tindall@cybre.space

@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?

@tindall @garbados @dankwraith It's kinda funny that Google bans the WTFPL licence, for being vague.

So if you want a permissive licence and want to stop Google, you can do that.

@tindall @garbados @dankwraith I heard of one interesting approach: "Just don't specify the licence, never mention if it's FLOSS (or not)".

The logic being that corporations will be scared away from the vagueness, but regular people doing regular things might not care and use your source.

@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)

@tindall @garbados @dankwraith AGPL-licensed software is free software and open source

@tindall @garbados @dankwraith I like permissive licenses because I dislike complexity. I don't want to be bothered by legal this and that, and things I'm not allowed to do. Unlicense, cc0, wtfpl etc lets me just shut up and hack.

@byllgrim @tindall @dankwraith i relate to this, and i suppose it’s why i appreciate a robust discourse around licensing because in the end i get to just pick one rather than writing up my own (gosh, imagine that nightmare!)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Mastodon instance for cats, the people who love them, and kindness in general. We strive to be a radically inclusive safe space. By creating an account, you agree to follow our CoC below.

Instance Administration

  • Woozle: Supreme Uberwensch, general support, web hostess
  • Charlotte: tech support, apprentice in warp-drive arcana (aka Mastomaintenance)
  • ash: backend stuff, gay crimes

The Project: