• nikaaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • hglman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s short but to the point, use AGPL and the problem is capitalism.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          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

      • The Doctor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          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

          • The Doctor@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            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.

            • J Lou@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              @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

              • The Doctor@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I ask from a position of ignorance, because I simply don’t know: Has anyone actually done this? Has it worked?

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              AGPL, hasn’t worked

              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.

  • will_a113@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    I started using GitHub before Microsoft bought it, what should I be using instead? GitLab? Codeberg? Something else?