- 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.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/18408267
On Open Source and the Sustainability of the Commons par Ploum - Lionel Dricot.
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?
@linux
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.
@linux
What are your thoughts on SSPL? I’m on the fence and leaning towards SSPL, or at least needing a more restrictive AGPL. I believe the FSF is too ideological and the OSI has a conflict of interest and that’s why the two reject it. Though I believe SSPL may be poorly thought out.
I don’t know. I don’t have an opinion on it.