Follow

Can't stop thinking about a new model for community-based development where there's co-ownership between users and maintainers, hybrid coop-style.

Maintainers' buy-in is labor.
Users' buy-in is remuneration for maintainers.

And both get to participate in decision-making.

it's a huge problem right now (open source entitlement) where users expect to participate in decision-making as well as expect a product for free, that works for them, without giving anything of any sort back to those doing the labor.

Worker exploitation, but make it Freedom™️

Show thread

I shall term this Cooperative Software.

Key traits:
1. Always source-available.
2. Shared code ownership through an entity, or through xlcollaborative.com/
3. Users pay for Membership, which lets them use the software and file issues.
4. Maintainer time is *paid* by users.

Show thread

I shall term this Cooperative Software.

Key traits:
1. Always source-available.
2. Shared code ownership through an entity, or through xlcollaborative.com
3. Users pay for Membership, which lets them use the software and file issues.
4. Users *and* maintainers make decisions

Show thread

oh, and yes: #3 implies non-permissive licensing. :)

Show thread

More thoughts on this: transitive licensing can be done through Project Memberships, where your dependents are able to buy a license that lets them distribute their software with your library as a dependency.

Having a standard set of expectations for this would be good too.

Show thread

and no, none of this is particularly new. I'm just proposing we give it a name and determine a set of normalized expectations that determine if a project falls into this umbrella, to create a shared vocabulary and build community.

Show thread

and once we have a shared set of expectations, we can have shared licenses, shared models, and even get stuff like GH Sponsors to support it as a first-class thing.

Show thread

@zkat

Sounds like an initiative that @be has been working on the past few weeks!

@be @theblacksquid @zkat Love it. I’m adopting this terminology immediately.

@zkat #3 also implies proprietary software since people aren't free to use the software. This feels a bit too much a step in the wrong direction to me.

The act of allowing people to freely use your software is cooperative by nature. What if some one wants to take the software in a different direction for example? Floss implies that people can do this. The result of this is that multiple projects can try out different things and can learn from each other, which can improve the software for every one using it. By saying that people aren't free to share use and adapt, this is impossible, yet important for cooperation imo.

@ilja it is very explicitly not "free software" and not "open source". This is very much a rejection of those values because they ultimately lead to exploitation.

That said, Members *are* free to modify and create their own things, even if redistribution isn't guaranteed.

The point is to build community, not build up a whole thing where non involved entities (like corporations) can exploit a bunch of free labor for their own profit.

@zkat let's not forget the other side of the coin tho: devs feeling entitled because MUH PROJECT MUH RULES, refusing to accept feedback, being openly bigoted, threatening to shut down the project, suggesting people fork their code if they don't like how they are acting etc...

@zkat We are working on exactly that with @kosmos. Slow but steady progress, but not very public yet. Give us a follow if you're interested.

@raucao @zkat @kosmos May First is a multi stakeholder coop - workers and members. We have a concept of "worker" that includes both paid and unpaid workers that are explicitly hired and directed by the elected leadership, as opposed to "volunteer" who can show up when they can. By laws are here mayfirst.coop/en/bylaws/. But... No software ownership. I think what you are talking about is more about writing specific software.

> explicitly not "free software" and not "open source"

I think the missing notion here is *commoning*. Members of commons are not free to do what they like and build what they like. They have privileges and obligations. They operate under protocols. The relations of their co-production are defined to be NOT the hegemonic relations of production.

The thing that makes a commons is multistakeholder stewarding. It's not easy, but a good step beyond trad 'coop' model
@jamiem @raucao @zkat @kosmos

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Toot.Cat

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!