3 ms·

Most users use those large corporations. I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking on this topic.

fsflover 2y ago
Nothing actually prevents those corporations from using AGPLv3. The are only afraid that they can't create a walled garden with it. So users are protected from that, as designed.
- immibis 2y ago
  Users are protected from interacting with the big corporations they exclusively interact with?
  - fsflover 2y ago
    This particular way of creating a walled garden, which relies on free work of free software volunteers, doesn't work thanks to AGPLv3. Whenever this license is involved, it works.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      It unfortunately does nothing to prevent creation of a walled garden via creation of proprietary content in a proprietary network fabric on proprietary infrastructure, which... Seems to be all you need, given the popularity of Facebook, X, YouTube, and the multiple cloud service providers supporting something like (depending on who's crunching the numbers) 74% of enterprises. If the goal was to change behavior... Behavior refuses to change.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        Whoever wants, can use Mastodon and others just fine. AGPLv3 works flawlessly here.
      - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
        What’s your point, exactly? How does the “open source” approach solve this? Surely you’re not putting down the AGPLv3 without also recognizing that “open source” software only strengthens proprietary *wares?
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        On the contrary, I think open source strengthens everything. Where copyleft leaves users of other people's software looking over their shoulder to confirm they haven't broken the license, with open source licenses I can release some work and not worry about how it's used, and I can use somebody's work without fear that they will come after me later. It does strengthen proprietary software. It also strengthens everyone else's software. It's the rising tide that floats all boats.
        immibis 2y ago
        What you're referring to is actually permissive licensing (or as I like to call it... /s). It's a scam. It works fine for trivial pieces of code that no one cares about. But for bigger pieces of software, you're donating your time to Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir. You're volunteering for them. Why would you do that? If they want you to work for them they should pay you. If not for your wallet's sake then for the sake of hurting bad companies. Copyleft is easy to comply with. Being scared of copyleft is like being scared of servers (which most programmers are according to DHH!).
        tourmalinetaco 2y ago
        [flagged]
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        > But for bigger pieces of software, you're donating your time to Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir. You're volunteering for them. Why would you do that? Because "everyone" means everyone. Ask the OpenSSL developers why they do what they do. > Being scared of copyleft is like being scared of servers (which most programmers are according to DHH!). ... Yep, you got it.

Nothing actually prevents those corporations from using AGPLv3. The are only afraid that they can't create a walled garden with it. So users are protected from that, as designed.

immibis 2y ago
Users are protected from interacting with the big corporations they exclusively interact with?
- fsflover 2y ago
  This particular way of creating a walled garden, which relies on free work of free software volunteers, doesn't work thanks to AGPLv3. Whenever this license is involved, it works.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    It unfortunately does nothing to prevent creation of a walled garden via creation of proprietary content in a proprietary network fabric on proprietary infrastructure, which... Seems to be all you need, given the popularity of Facebook, X, YouTube, and the multiple cloud service providers supporting something like (depending on who's crunching the numbers) 74% of enterprises. If the goal was to change behavior... Behavior refuses to change.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      Whoever wants, can use Mastodon and others just fine. AGPLv3 works flawlessly here.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      What’s your point, exactly? How does the “open source” approach solve this? Surely you’re not putting down the AGPLv3 without also recognizing that “open source” software only strengthens proprietary *wares?
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        On the contrary, I think open source strengthens everything. Where copyleft leaves users of other people's software looking over their shoulder to confirm they haven't broken the license, with open source licenses I can release some work and not worry about how it's used, and I can use somebody's work without fear that they will come after me later. It does strengthen proprietary software. It also strengthens everyone else's software. It's the rising tide that floats all boats.
        immibis 2y ago
        What you're referring to is actually permissive licensing (or as I like to call it... /s). It's a scam. It works fine for trivial pieces of code that no one cares about. But for bigger pieces of software, you're donating your time to Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir. You're volunteering for them. Why would you do that? If they want you to work for them they should pay you. If not for your wallet's sake then for the sake of hurting bad companies. Copyleft is easy to comply with. Being scared of copyleft is like being scared of servers (which most programmers are according to DHH!).
        tourmalinetaco 2y ago
        [flagged]
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        > But for bigger pieces of software, you're donating your time to Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir. You're volunteering for them. Why would you do that? Because "everyone" means everyone. Ask the OpenSSL developers why they do what they do. > Being scared of copyleft is like being scared of servers (which most programmers are according to DHH!). ... Yep, you got it.