3 ms·

Ideological contents aside: > does not exploit the labor of non-members This is not good legal terminology and so makes it a bad license. People who want to

Ideological contents aside: > does not exploit the labor of non-members This is not good legal terminology and so makes it a bad license. People who want to prevent monetization by a closed-source company are probably still better off with the AGPL.

vmception 6y ago
That statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? They just didn't define members, which are clearly - to me - the people with membership interests in an Limited Company, along with the managing member. Or shareholders in a Corporation. I have no comment on the rest of the clauses so to anyone passing by, don't base any response to me as if I have an opinion.
- tzs 6y ago
  It doesn't define "exploit the labor of non-members". What interactions with a non-member count as "exploiting" their labor?
  - kemotep 6y ago
    Does this requirement mean computer components that the software is written and deployed on needs to be "conflict free", and manufactured by other anti-capitalist firms? I don't know of anything that would meet that definition.
    - tzs 6y ago
      My guess is that what it is trying to cover is having employees who are paid an hourly wage or a salary only rather than being included in the profit sharing. If that is correct, there would be no restriction on them buying and using supplies from other organizations that do exploit labor.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  That statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? No definition of "exploit". That word means different things when read in a marxist, capitalist, or legal context, and probably different things in branches of each.
henriquez 6y ago
I came to post the same nit, in this context “members” is not defined. And taken at its extreme (assuming an intuitive definition), it could be argued that any organization “exploits” the labor of anyone else by participating in and benefiting from the economy as a whole, not to mention specific things like roads, schools, etc. This section needs to be clarified, as is the license is perilously unusable.
badRNG 6y ago
It does seem like it would be stronger if it simply stated that all employees must be equal owners.

vmception 6y ago

That statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? They just didn't define members, which are clearly - to me - the people with membership interests in an Limited Company, along with the managing member. Or shareholders in a Corporation. I have no comment on the rest of the clauses so to anyone passing by, don't base any response to me as if I have an opinion.

tzs 6y ago
It doesn't define "exploit the labor of non-members". What interactions with a non-member count as "exploiting" their labor?
- kemotep 6y ago
  Does this requirement mean computer components that the software is written and deployed on needs to be "conflict free", and manufactured by other anti-capitalist firms? I don't know of anything that would meet that definition.
  - tzs 6y ago
    My guess is that what it is trying to cover is having employees who are paid an hourly wage or a salary only rather than being included in the profit sharing. If that is correct, there would be no restriction on them buying and using supplies from other organizations that do exploit labor.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
That statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? No definition of "exploit". That word means different things when read in a marxist, capitalist, or legal context, and probably different things in branches of each.

henriquez 6y ago

I came to post the same nit, in this context “members” is not defined. And taken at its extreme (assuming an intuitive definition), it could be argued that any organization “exploits” the labor of anyone else by participating in and benefiting from the economy as a whole, not to mention specific things like roads, schools, etc. This section needs to be clarified, as is the license is perilously unusable.

badRNG 6y ago

It does seem like it would be stronger if it simply stated that all employees must be equal owners.