3 ms·

My issue here is that the entire conversation is presupposed on the notion that freedom and non-commercial are diametrically opposed. I reject that framing.

danShumway 5y ago
> is presupposed on the notion that freedom and non-commercial are diametrically opposed I don't think that freedom is diametrically opposed to non-commercial work, but while the specific lines that we've drawn around Free/Libre content are arguably arbitrary, they do provide a meaningful distinction between blocking future restrictions to other people, and blocking direct usage of future content regardless of what restrictions that content has. The difference between the GPL and Non-Commercial clauses are not merely matters of degree or economics, they are meaningful, philosophical differences about what user freedoms are afforded. Where non-commercial content is concerned, the FOSS (and Creative Commons) world is wildly underfunded, and yet it still manages to chug along reasonably well. Many communities both in and out of FOSS produce freedom-respecting content with very little funding or reward to show for it. It's very difficult, but they make it work. So it's definitely not that non-commercial work is antithetical to freedom, in many ways non-commercial work has formed (and continues to form) the backbone of freedom. However, given that we are aware of the fact that the FOSS (and Creative Commons) world is so underfunded, it seems particularly weird to be championing licenses that make it harder for small developers and small communities to fund Creative-Commons content or to sustainably build on Copyleft work. There is not much point in building a commons if it's impossible for anyone to sustainably build anything on top of it. At that point, at the point where licenses restrict anyone from actually using that content for anything except charity, then you don't really have a commons so much as a demo reel that funnels people into traditional proprietary licensing agreements.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > However, given that we are aware of the fact that the FOSS (and Creative Commons) world is so underfunded, it seems particularly weird to be championing licenses that make it harder for small developers and small communities to fund Creative-Commons content or to sustainably build on Copyleft work. This presumes that commercially friendly licenses help provide funding for FOSS development. While there might be a handful of high profile cases where this happens (Blender comes to mind), more often than not the relationship between FOSS and commercial enterprises is a fundamentally extractive process. If you run an open source project the best case scenario is that someone else uses your project to make their business more successful (and give nothing back), the worst case is having AWS straight up sell your product, making millions off your work and cutting you out from any hope of making money.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > This presumes that commercially friendly licenses help provide funding for FOSS development. Yes, definitely, when compared against a license that bans funding your project. I'm not here to argue that the current state of funding in FOSS is great, I'm here to argue that banning funding is not going to help it. Blender can't use an NC licensed asset in the program, because their software is a commercial product that they are making money off of. What an NC licensed commons does is it guarantees that anyone building on top of the commons can not do so in a sustainable way, regardless of whether or not they're building FOSS software. I think what people miss when they talk about the commons is that FOSS projects are built on top of FOSS projects, and questions about funding necessarily affect not just the immediate developer that releases a project, but the ability of every single downstream CC/FOSS project that is trying to build on top of a shared commons. Philosophically, the idea of a shared commons is that having an open collection of software/content that everyone both contributes to and that everyone builds on top of will be better for society. It is reasonable for people to disagree with that philosophy and to argue that closing down and forcing people to get permission to build anything large on top of the commons is a better model -- that is the model of proprietary software. But people should be aware what they're arguing for. Non-Commercial licenses are an assertion that any other commons material built on top of that content must be unfunded. Future creative commons works can not include content under proprietary dual-licenses to your stuff while remaining FOSS/CC themselves. So they have choice. Either have no funding at all, or reject the Creative Commons and build proprietary stuff using assets that are licensed under Non-Free agreements. In the current world, an assertion that the Creative Commons should require Non-Commercial usage is an assertion that Creative Commons content should not be funded.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > Yes, when compared against a license that bans funding your project. I'm not here to argue that the current state of funding in FOSS is great, I'm here to argue that banning funding is not going to help it. Banning funding that doesn’t exist for most projects isn’t harmful. 50% less than $0 is still $0. Most open source projects get nothing from companies, and count on the free labor of the founder and those “buy me a coffee” buttons (which would still be fine for a non-commercial project). In fact, it’s extremely common to have open source library writers complain that their product is used by unicorns and Fortune 500 companies, yet they’re forced to support development of a product that helps others profit. This is part of why we see such public burnout and ragequits here from time to time. It’s fine to say “well banning commercial funding won’t help”, but let’s be honest; for profit companies aren’t going to give anything back without being forced to do so. We’re covering huge chunks of their labor cost for free, without some mechanism to force them to pay, they never will. > Blender can't use an NC licensed asset in the program, because their software is a commercial product that they are making money off of. What an NC licensed commons does is it guarantees that anyone building on top of the commons can not do so in a sustainable way. Blender is in extremely rarified territory for a FOSS program; it gets direct cash subsidies from for profit companies who see benefit in its development. While it’s obviously true that Blender going NC would ruin them, looking at such outliers to judge the median is like looking at a lottery winner when planning out your finances; you’re going to get a skewed sense of reality. Also, Blender isn’t getting funded by Epic out of the goodness of their hearts or a concern for the commons. Epic sees profit in making it easier for other people to make video games for their platform. Very, very few open source projects will ever end up in this position.

danShumway 5y ago

> is presupposed on the notion that freedom and non-commercial are diametrically opposed I don't think that freedom is diametrically opposed to non-commercial work, but while the specific lines that we've drawn around Free/Libre content are arguably arbitrary, they do provide a meaningful distinction between blocking future restrictions to other people, and blocking direct usage of future content regardless of what restrictions that content has. The difference between the GPL and Non-Commercial clauses are not merely matters of degree or economics, they are meaningful, philosophical differences about what user freedoms are afforded. Where non-commercial content is concerned, the FOSS (and Creative Commons) world is wildly underfunded, and yet it still manages to chug along reasonably well. Many communities both in and out of FOSS produce freedom-respecting content with very little funding or reward to show for it. It's very difficult, but they make it work. So it's definitely not that non-commercial work is antithetical to freedom, in many ways non-commercial work has formed (and continues to form) the backbone of freedom. However, given that we are aware of the fact that the FOSS (and Creative Commons) world is so underfunded, it seems particularly weird to be championing licenses that make it harder for small developers and small communities to fund Creative-Commons content or to sustainably build on Copyleft work. There is not much point in building a commons if it's impossible for anyone to sustainably build anything on top of it. At that point, at the point where licenses restrict anyone from actually using that content for anything except charity, then you don't really have a commons so much as a demo reel that funnels people into traditional proprietary licensing agreements.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> However, given that we are aware of the fact that the FOSS (and Creative Commons) world is so underfunded, it seems particularly weird to be championing licenses that make it harder for small developers and small communities to fund Creative-Commons content or to sustainably build on Copyleft work. This presumes that commercially friendly licenses help provide funding for FOSS development. While there might be a handful of high profile cases where this happens (Blender comes to mind), more often than not the relationship between FOSS and commercial enterprises is a fundamentally extractive process. If you run an open source project the best case scenario is that someone else uses your project to make their business more successful (and give nothing back), the worst case is having AWS straight up sell your product, making millions off your work and cutting you out from any hope of making money.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > This presumes that commercially friendly licenses help provide funding for FOSS development. Yes, definitely, when compared against a license that bans funding your project. I'm not here to argue that the current state of funding in FOSS is great, I'm here to argue that banning funding is not going to help it. Blender can't use an NC licensed asset in the program, because their software is a commercial product that they are making money off of. What an NC licensed commons does is it guarantees that anyone building on top of the commons can not do so in a sustainable way, regardless of whether or not they're building FOSS software. I think what people miss when they talk about the commons is that FOSS projects are built on top of FOSS projects, and questions about funding necessarily affect not just the immediate developer that releases a project, but the ability of every single downstream CC/FOSS project that is trying to build on top of a shared commons. Philosophically, the idea of a shared commons is that having an open collection of software/content that everyone both contributes to and that everyone builds on top of will be better for society. It is reasonable for people to disagree with that philosophy and to argue that closing down and forcing people to get permission to build anything large on top of the commons is a better model -- that is the model of proprietary software. But people should be aware what they're arguing for. Non-Commercial licenses are an assertion that any other commons material built on top of that content must be unfunded. Future creative commons works can not include content under proprietary dual-licenses to your stuff while remaining FOSS/CC themselves. So they have choice. Either have no funding at all, or reject the Creative Commons and build proprietary stuff using assets that are licensed under Non-Free agreements. In the current world, an assertion that the Creative Commons should require Non-Commercial usage is an assertion that Creative Commons content should not be funded.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > Yes, when compared against a license that bans funding your project. I'm not here to argue that the current state of funding in FOSS is great, I'm here to argue that banning funding is not going to help it. Banning funding that doesn’t exist for most projects isn’t harmful. 50% less than $0 is still $0. Most open source projects get nothing from companies, and count on the free labor of the founder and those “buy me a coffee” buttons (which would still be fine for a non-commercial project). In fact, it’s extremely common to have open source library writers complain that their product is used by unicorns and Fortune 500 companies, yet they’re forced to support development of a product that helps others profit. This is part of why we see such public burnout and ragequits here from time to time. It’s fine to say “well banning commercial funding won’t help”, but let’s be honest; for profit companies aren’t going to give anything back without being forced to do so. We’re covering huge chunks of their labor cost for free, without some mechanism to force them to pay, they never will. > Blender can't use an NC licensed asset in the program, because their software is a commercial product that they are making money off of. What an NC licensed commons does is it guarantees that anyone building on top of the commons can not do so in a sustainable way. Blender is in extremely rarified territory for a FOSS program; it gets direct cash subsidies from for profit companies who see benefit in its development. While it’s obviously true that Blender going NC would ruin them, looking at such outliers to judge the median is like looking at a lottery winner when planning out your finances; you’re going to get a skewed sense of reality. Also, Blender isn’t getting funded by Epic out of the goodness of their hearts or a concern for the commons. Epic sees profit in making it easier for other people to make video games for their platform. Very, very few open source projects will ever end up in this position.