3 ms·

I'm still wrapping my head around the commons clause but I think I really like it. The FSF licenses are designed to create a parallel open "copyleft" ecosystem.

I'm still wrapping my head around the commons clause but I think I really like it. The FSF licenses are designed to create a parallel open "copyleft" ecosystem. However, they fall short of identifying capitalism as the system that creates value in "copyright" and creates scarcity where none exists in the name of profit. The commons clause has more revolutionary content in that it prohibits participation in capitalism. I'm trying to decide if there should be additional limitations or exemptions for institutions that build a better more democratic and humane society. For example, perhaps worker coops can use the software, but heirarchical institutions cannot. Perhaps science and medicine can use it, but stores cannot. I recognize the point of the commons clause is a kind of rebellion within capitalism against exploitation of individuals by business. However, like the GPL, perhaps it's time to go further than copyleft and advance a real left agenda by supporting left institutions.

bigiain 8y ago
While I agree with you, and personally I think we're on the brink of (or perhaps we've shot right past and just haven't noticed yet) a new kind of software creation - some kind of "company-supported, source-available, relatively-free-to-use, but with restrictions on uses that compete with or financially benefit from things the company that mostly funds the software do" thing. I don't know if it'll work out long term, or if it does whether it'll be a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it's worth a shot to see what happens when you pursue those ideas, and will be watching RedisLabs and MongoDB (and others) with interest over the coming years. There's a very left leaning socialist part of me who thinks "That's bad. Apache and MySQL and Perl/Python/PHP and many many other genuinely free software projects have worked fine for decades now, why change to less free alternatives if Stallman-style free software can and does work?", but there's also a pragmatic part of me that thinks "I wonder what new software might come into existence if companies can afford to hire teams of devs and architects (and QA people and tech writers and and and) by limiting _some_ of the freedom to allow themselves to generate revenue more easily, without limiting anything like as much freedom as, say, Microsoft or Oracle do?" Personally, I don't think I'll be contributing to any "commons clause" restricted software, but I _do_ wish the people experimenting with that new model the best of luck and have some optimism that it _might_ open up new and unexpected opportunities as it changes the landscape around how software gets written, shared, and monetised.
kemitchell 8y ago
Have a look at the Peer Production License and HESSLA.
pabs3 8y ago
You may be interested in the Copyfarleft concept: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft

bigiain 8y ago

While I agree with you, and personally I think we're on the brink of (or perhaps we've shot right past and just haven't noticed yet) a new kind of software creation - some kind of "company-supported, source-available, relatively-free-to-use, but with restrictions on uses that compete with or financially benefit from things the company that mostly funds the software do" thing. I don't know if it'll work out long term, or if it does whether it'll be a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it's worth a shot to see what happens when you pursue those ideas, and will be watching RedisLabs and MongoDB (and others) with interest over the coming years. There's a very left leaning socialist part of me who thinks "That's bad. Apache and MySQL and Perl/Python/PHP and many many other genuinely free software projects have worked fine for decades now, why change to less free alternatives if Stallman-style free software can and does work?", but there's also a pragmatic part of me that thinks "I wonder what new software might come into existence if companies can afford to hire teams of devs and architects (and QA people and tech writers and and and) by limiting _some_ of the freedom to allow themselves to generate revenue more easily, without limiting anything like as much freedom as, say, Microsoft or Oracle do?" Personally, I don't think I'll be contributing to any "commons clause" restricted software, but I _do_ wish the people experimenting with that new model the best of luck and have some optimism that it _might_ open up new and unexpected opportunities as it changes the landscape around how software gets written, shared, and monetised.

kemitchell 8y ago

Have a look at the Peer Production License and HESSLA.

pabs3 8y ago

You may be interested in the Copyfarleft concept: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft