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?
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.