5 ms·

I'm about as pro-capitalist, laissez-faire, pro-free-market as it gets. I was a literal card-carrying member of the LibertariaNZ party back in New Zealand. Th

I'm about as pro-capitalist, laissez-faire, pro-free-market as it gets. I was a literal card-carrying member of the LibertariaNZ party back in New Zealand. The spirit of this license disgusts me at a fairly deep emotional level. That said, I think that this specific concern raised by the license is very real: > ... If you want your code to empower students, artists, hobbyists, collectives, cooperatives and nonprofits to survive under capitalism while not contributing free labor to corporations. I've seen a few cases where I think that open source authors and maintainers are getting it in the shorts. Yes there's value - "Egoboo", learning, personal promotion, etc. - but I don't think it's enough in many cases. For example: * Free software that contributes to the growth and dominance of proprietary, for-profit ecosystems. E.g. I was recently back on Windows for the first time in a decade or so professionally, building an app I'd written in Common Lisp. Scoop (for package management on Windows) and Rosewell (which now supports Windows) made this super easy and pleasant. But ... why would you spend your time writing Free software to benefit such an ecosystem? Unless you're being paid for it, why not spend your time contributing to a Free ecosystem instead? * Free software that is productised by cloud providers (e.g. https://www.zdnet.com/article/aws-hits-back-at-open-source-software-critics/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/aws-hits-back-at-open-source-s...). * Companies like Google, who are happy to build upon a plethora of open source products to generate billion-dollar profits, but who then turn around and actively give the middle finger to the communities without which they wouldn't exist (e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/03/googles_widevine_drm/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/03/googles_widevine_drm/).

Kednicma 6y ago
I think it's hilarious that you're disgusted. How awful would it be if, when you purchased a computer, you were entitled to all of the code that comes with the computer, and full documentation and toolchains? How much worse would your life really get? Edit: Please, use your words and not your downvote. Your downvotes just mean that you agree with me: Your disgust is an ironic expression of a crab mentality where you regret that other people might be able to have nice things due to us working together as a society.
- duncan_bayne 6y ago
  I think you are attracting downvotes because you completely mistook my point. I support Free software - financially, by evangelising it, by writing it, and by using it. My point was that I think some large companies are getting a lot more value from their use of it than the authors and maintainers get from working on it. (Edited to add: I agree wholeheartedly about downvoting vs. replying. I wish more people would reply instead of, or perhaps as well as, downvoting).
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    You are almost to one of the big tenets of Marxism: Employers have it out for employees; managers do not respect laborers. I think that what's missing from your insight is that every corporation, simply by dint of its legal structure and societal appearance, has an unfair modicum of power which it lords over the folks that actually do the work.
    - duncan_bayne 6y ago
      ... which is why it's entirely reasonable for labour to unionise, to increase their bargaining power with employers. One of the fundamentals of Marxism with which I disagree, though - at such a fundamental level that it drives an emotional response to the license we're discussing - is that paid labour is necessarily exploitation. That is, I consider the labour theory of value to be incorrect. I'm reminded of the famous Reagan quote: > How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
gremlinsinc 6y ago
I think a better solution (as a socialist/libertarian) is a license where the license itself has a foundation or union. All companies using the license commercially pay 3% of their yearly income into the fund. With a cap of 10% (if using multiple libraries/source codes). It's spread equally to all software devs using this license based on lines of code contributed. Worker coops using the license would be free use, but would still be required to register their usage, business structure, and purpose. You'd continue getting dividends, but as more code is submitted if you never wrote another line of code your share % would drop as more and more developers write code.
- duncan_bayne 6y ago
  > Worker coops using the license would be free use How is a worker co-op using the licensed software for commercial purposes different from, say, a corporation?
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    Because the whole point is a worker-coop doesn't pay workers shit salaries. Developers make as much as the CEO, CFO, CTO, etc. Even the janitor, makes the same.

Kednicma 6y ago

I think it's hilarious that you're disgusted. How awful would it be if, when you purchased a computer, you were entitled to all of the code that comes with the computer, and full documentation and toolchains? How much worse would your life really get? Edit: Please, use your words and not your downvote. Your downvotes just mean that you agree with me: Your disgust is an ironic expression of a crab mentality where you regret that other people might be able to have nice things due to us working together as a society.

duncan_bayne 6y ago
I think you are attracting downvotes because you completely mistook my point. I support Free software - financially, by evangelising it, by writing it, and by using it. My point was that I think some large companies are getting a lot more value from their use of it than the authors and maintainers get from working on it. (Edited to add: I agree wholeheartedly about downvoting vs. replying. I wish more people would reply instead of, or perhaps as well as, downvoting).
- Kednicma 6y ago
  You are almost to one of the big tenets of Marxism: Employers have it out for employees; managers do not respect laborers. I think that what's missing from your insight is that every corporation, simply by dint of its legal structure and societal appearance, has an unfair modicum of power which it lords over the folks that actually do the work.
  - duncan_bayne 6y ago
    ... which is why it's entirely reasonable for labour to unionise, to increase their bargaining power with employers. One of the fundamentals of Marxism with which I disagree, though - at such a fundamental level that it drives an emotional response to the license we're discussing - is that paid labour is necessarily exploitation. That is, I consider the labour theory of value to be incorrect. I'm reminded of the famous Reagan quote: > How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gremlinsinc 6y ago

I think a better solution (as a socialist/libertarian) is a license where the license itself has a foundation or union. All companies using the license commercially pay 3% of their yearly income into the fund. With a cap of 10% (if using multiple libraries/source codes). It's spread equally to all software devs using this license based on lines of code contributed. Worker coops using the license would be free use, but would still be required to register their usage, business structure, and purpose. You'd continue getting dividends, but as more code is submitted if you never wrote another line of code your share % would drop as more and more developers write code.

duncan_bayne 6y ago
> Worker coops using the license would be free use How is a worker co-op using the licensed software for commercial purposes different from, say, a corporation?
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Because the whole point is a worker-coop doesn't pay workers shit salaries. Developers make as much as the CEO, CFO, CTO, etc. Even the janitor, makes the same.