4 ms·

Two thoughts. Ben Thompson and James Allworth discussed an idea on an episode of The Exponent (https://exponent.fm/ https://exponent.fm/) the idea of a "princi

Two thoughts. Ben Thompson and James Allworth discussed an idea on an episode of The Exponent (https://exponent.fm/ https://exponent.fm/) the idea of a "principle stack", and at which "layer" of the stack it's appropriate to address different societal issues. I wish I could find the episode again, it was quite a few years ago. The upshot being... maybe software licensing isn't the right place to address e.g. income inequality? On the other hand, I definitely encourage tech workers (and all workers) to think about their place in the world and whether their work aligns with their personal values. I think the existence of free and open source software is a fantastic thing, but I think we should continue to evaluate whether it is in danger, or whether it could be better, or whether our efforts might be applied to something else. For example, I'd love to see co-ops developing shared-source infrastructure based on principles of mutuality, which the sector is built upon anyway. The co-op principles already include cooperative and communitarian ideas which mesh really well with some aspects of open-source software development. But co-ops aren't about just giving everything away either. There could be a real new approach to building a software commons for mutual businesses, rather than a kind of freedom-washed way for big tech companies to benefit from free labour.

rsingel 11mo ago
I agree and it's happening. I co-founded Outpost Publishers Cooperative as a member services co-op to provide enterprise-level subscription services to publishers on Ghost (which is a non-profit). I'm biased but I think the model of member-service co-ops (like Ace Hardware) providing tailored software services to particular industries is fertile ground. Free of VC incentives, reasonably profitable, aligned incentives, and the state of software tooling makes this doable. And since this model doesn't require capturing as much value as a VC funded venture, it's more sustainable. But the hard thing is figuring out how to get to decent product without upfront investment, in lieu of investment models that don't require outsize returns. I can think of ways to create early capital but I've yet to see an industry think through how to fund smart suppliers without falling into the trap of thinking they need to be VCs.
- rsingel 11mo ago
  I'd say too we aren't the only ones. Plausible Analytics is a great, mission-driven, open-soutce non-profit providing cookie-free web analytics. And they let us bulk buy for our member publishers. There's so much potential in what you are suggesting!
- mamcx 11mo ago
  > how to get to decent product without upfront investment Yeah, this is the hard part. I work in the small “ERP-like” business market and I’ve come up with some good ideas (based on the reaction of the people I talk to). But the problem is that even a small team of about five genuinely solid developers can cost around US $300,000–500,000 per year — and that’s even factoring in that I’m in LATAM!. That’s a lot. To make something like this happen, you need to convince fairly big players — the ones who have the capital and the patience, but more importantly the vision. And that’s the part that’s rare. At least in theory, that’s what VCs are supposed to bring.
  - DANmode 11mo ago
    Bite the bullet, and find something smaller to use for funding the big thing. (This is the stage I’m at currently.)
- crabmusket 11mo ago
  That is fantastic to hear, kudos to you and best of luck! The funding is definitely an issue I'm chewing over in my mind as I think about these issues.
0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago
From the perspective of decreasing income inequality on a global scale, when multinationals fire workers in developed countries and replace them with lower-paid workers in developing countries, that is a very good thing, since people in developing countries need the jobs more. I would be skeptical of any license which privileges co-ops over multinationals for that reason. Co-ops are likely to reinforce existing global income inequality, due to labor protections for developed-world workers. A globally rich, privileged slacker gets to keep a job they're barely doing, because they had the good fortune of being born on the right dirt. It's modern feudalism.
- crabmusket 11mo ago
  I haven't yet fully digested this comment, but I will say right off the bat that there are many co-ops in the developing world. Nathan Schneider in Everything for Everyone describes the culture shock of arriving in Nigeria (IIRC) and co-ops being everywhere, just such a normal part of life.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago
    Sure, I think the point I'm trying to make is that second and third-order effects can be complex and unexpected when it comes to economics. For example, what if the dominance of co-ops in Nigeria is a contributor to economic stagnation? Do co-ops still count as "virtuous" if they're keeping a nation impoverished? Testing that hypothesis would be highly nontrivial, econometrics is hard. Trying to license your software so as to reduce income inequality seems too ambitious. Licensing your software so it can e.g. be used by cleantech companies but not fossil fuel companies seems way more feasible by comparison.
    - crabmusket 11mo ago
      Yes I don't disagree. I was using the income inequality statement as an example of what Thompson and Allworth might advise against. Software licensing might be at the wrong layer of the stack to have any impact on macroeconomics.
0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago
>at which "layer" of the stack it's appropriate to address different societal issues. One problem with trying to restrict the availability of open-source software: In the limit, as LLMs become better and better at writing code, the value of open-source software will go to zero. So trying to restrict the availability of your code is skating away from where the puck is going. Perhaps your efforts to improve the world are better allocated elsewhere.
- salawat 11mo ago
  I mean, if you ignore the fact there would be no LLM's without wholesale scraping of the corpus of all software ever written. LLM's are the least ethically sourced pieces of technology I've ever seen. That they have businesses built that haven't been sued out of existence for not asking for permission to train first is positively mind boggling.
  - pabs3 11mo ago
    > all software ever written LLMs aren't usually trained on large proprietary codebases like the ones from Google, Microsoft or Apple?
    - salawat 11mo ago
      You think there wasn't a reason Microsoft bought GitHub, whose ToS allowed them to expand their training corpus vastly beyond their own internal systems? Why Amazon does the same thing with CodeCommit? If your stuff is hosted somewhere with a ToS, you can bet that repo is getting into the training corpus. Having you flavor of LLM in today's is too valuable for any corp to pass up the opportunity.
nine_k 11mo ago
It is impossible to write a real "use for good, not evil" [1] license, because there's no formal, universally accepted notions of good and evil. While there are things that are universally considered good, or considered evil, the areas around them are large, nebulous, and are anything but clearly outlined. Hence legally avoiding the "anti-evil" license terms will always be a relatively easy option for a willing party. Moreover, there is a large range of issues and causes that are considered "good" by some and "evil" by others, so there will always be a controversy and disagreement even without any legal suits, where everyone would consider themselves sincerely right, not just technically correct while violating the spirit. A weapon that only a lawful good character can wield is the stuff of fairy tales and board games, which do not reflect reality fully enough. Unlike this, freedom is pretty well-defined, so e.g. GPL is upheld by courts. [1]: https://www.json.org/license.html https://www.json.org/license.html
- awesome_dude 11mo ago
  I have this thinking that, in reality, there's no such thing as objectively 'good' or objectively 'bad' It's all context and timing. Almost everyone that will attack this idea will present actions that are loaded with context - murder, is killing when it's bad, self defence is killing when it's good. If you look at everything, and look at it's non-contextual action, then you can easily find contextually 'good' and contextually 'bad' instances of that thing. Even further, the story of the man who lost his horse [0] shows us that even if we say that something that happens is contextually good, or bad, the resulting timeline could actually be the complete opposite, meaning that, ultimately, we can never really know if something is good, or bad. [0] https://oneearthsangha.org/articles/the-old-man-who-lost-his-horse/ https://oneearthsangha.org/articles/the-old-man-who-lost-his...
  - mejutoco 11mo ago
    I think this is one of these cases where talking in abstract terms does not help people agree. What I am hearing is if you remove context (and timing, lets say it is part of context) then there is no good or bad. But who said to remove context? Arent we saying then there is good and bad depending on context? Many people, including myself, would agree in the abstract, while at the same time some situations being very clear once down to a real example. It reminds me of people claiming pain is an illusion or facts not existing (very edgy), until someone slaps them in the face to prove "I did slap you, that is a fact". I think that is reality, and specific examples are easier. P.S. I would add values into the context.
crabmusket 11mo ago
I think I confused two different discussions on Exponent. Here's one episode where they discuss the stack, particularly in reference to net neutrality: https://exponent.fm/episode-168-a-community-of-loonies/ https://exponent.fm/episode-168-a-community-of-loonies/ But I'm sure I remember an episode where they discuss Matthew Prince and some neo-nazi site. The "principle stack" is a separate concept which I haven't yet found.
- crabmusket 11mo ago
  Oh, silly me. It's the episode called "principle stacks", which I didn't notice skimming through the feed, nor did Google find it. https://exponent.fm/episode-177-principle-stacks/ https://exponent.fm/episode-177-principle-stacks/

rsingel 11mo ago

I agree and it's happening. I co-founded Outpost Publishers Cooperative as a member services co-op to provide enterprise-level subscription services to publishers on Ghost (which is a non-profit). I'm biased but I think the model of member-service co-ops (like Ace Hardware) providing tailored software services to particular industries is fertile ground. Free of VC incentives, reasonably profitable, aligned incentives, and the state of software tooling makes this doable. And since this model doesn't require capturing as much value as a VC funded venture, it's more sustainable. But the hard thing is figuring out how to get to decent product without upfront investment, in lieu of investment models that don't require outsize returns. I can think of ways to create early capital but I've yet to see an industry think through how to fund smart suppliers without falling into the trap of thinking they need to be VCs.

rsingel 11mo ago
I'd say too we aren't the only ones. Plausible Analytics is a great, mission-driven, open-soutce non-profit providing cookie-free web analytics. And they let us bulk buy for our member publishers. There's so much potential in what you are suggesting!
mamcx 11mo ago
> how to get to decent product without upfront investment Yeah, this is the hard part. I work in the small “ERP-like” business market and I’ve come up with some good ideas (based on the reaction of the people I talk to). But the problem is that even a small team of about five genuinely solid developers can cost around US $300,000–500,000 per year — and that’s even factoring in that I’m in LATAM!. That’s a lot. To make something like this happen, you need to convince fairly big players — the ones who have the capital and the patience, but more importantly the vision. And that’s the part that’s rare. At least in theory, that’s what VCs are supposed to bring.
- DANmode 11mo ago
  Bite the bullet, and find something smaller to use for funding the big thing. (This is the stage I’m at currently.)
crabmusket 11mo ago
That is fantastic to hear, kudos to you and best of luck! The funding is definitely an issue I'm chewing over in my mind as I think about these issues.

0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago

From the perspective of decreasing income inequality on a global scale, when multinationals fire workers in developed countries and replace them with lower-paid workers in developing countries, that is a very good thing, since people in developing countries need the jobs more. I would be skeptical of any license which privileges co-ops over multinationals for that reason. Co-ops are likely to reinforce existing global income inequality, due to labor protections for developed-world workers. A globally rich, privileged slacker gets to keep a job they're barely doing, because they had the good fortune of being born on the right dirt. It's modern feudalism.

crabmusket 11mo ago
I haven't yet fully digested this comment, but I will say right off the bat that there are many co-ops in the developing world. Nathan Schneider in Everything for Everyone describes the culture shock of arriving in Nigeria (IIRC) and co-ops being everywhere, just such a normal part of life.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago
  Sure, I think the point I'm trying to make is that second and third-order effects can be complex and unexpected when it comes to economics. For example, what if the dominance of co-ops in Nigeria is a contributor to economic stagnation? Do co-ops still count as "virtuous" if they're keeping a nation impoverished? Testing that hypothesis would be highly nontrivial, econometrics is hard. Trying to license your software so as to reduce income inequality seems too ambitious. Licensing your software so it can e.g. be used by cleantech companies but not fossil fuel companies seems way more feasible by comparison.
  - crabmusket 11mo ago
    Yes I don't disagree. I was using the income inequality statement as an example of what Thompson and Allworth might advise against. Software licensing might be at the wrong layer of the stack to have any impact on macroeconomics.

0xDEAFBEAD 11mo ago

>at which "layer" of the stack it's appropriate to address different societal issues. One problem with trying to restrict the availability of open-source software: In the limit, as LLMs become better and better at writing code, the value of open-source software will go to zero. So trying to restrict the availability of your code is skating away from where the puck is going. Perhaps your efforts to improve the world are better allocated elsewhere.

salawat 11mo ago
I mean, if you ignore the fact there would be no LLM's without wholesale scraping of the corpus of all software ever written. LLM's are the least ethically sourced pieces of technology I've ever seen. That they have businesses built that haven't been sued out of existence for not asking for permission to train first is positively mind boggling.
- pabs3 11mo ago
  > all software ever written LLMs aren't usually trained on large proprietary codebases like the ones from Google, Microsoft or Apple?
  - salawat 11mo ago
    You think there wasn't a reason Microsoft bought GitHub, whose ToS allowed them to expand their training corpus vastly beyond their own internal systems? Why Amazon does the same thing with CodeCommit? If your stuff is hosted somewhere with a ToS, you can bet that repo is getting into the training corpus. Having you flavor of LLM in today's is too valuable for any corp to pass up the opportunity.

nine_k 11mo ago

It is impossible to write a real "use for good, not evil" [1] license, because there's no formal, universally accepted notions of good and evil. While there are things that are universally considered good, or considered evil, the areas around them are large, nebulous, and are anything but clearly outlined. Hence legally avoiding the "anti-evil" license terms will always be a relatively easy option for a willing party. Moreover, there is a large range of issues and causes that are considered "good" by some and "evil" by others, so there will always be a controversy and disagreement even without any legal suits, where everyone would consider themselves sincerely right, not just technically correct while violating the spirit. A weapon that only a lawful good character can wield is the stuff of fairy tales and board games, which do not reflect reality fully enough. Unlike this, freedom is pretty well-defined, so e.g. GPL is upheld by courts. [1]: https://www.json.org/license.html https://www.json.org/license.html

awesome_dude 11mo ago
I have this thinking that, in reality, there's no such thing as objectively 'good' or objectively 'bad' It's all context and timing. Almost everyone that will attack this idea will present actions that are loaded with context - murder, is killing when it's bad, self defence is killing when it's good. If you look at everything, and look at it's non-contextual action, then you can easily find contextually 'good' and contextually 'bad' instances of that thing. Even further, the story of the man who lost his horse [0] shows us that even if we say that something that happens is contextually good, or bad, the resulting timeline could actually be the complete opposite, meaning that, ultimately, we can never really know if something is good, or bad. [0] https://oneearthsangha.org/articles/the-old-man-who-lost-his-horse/ https://oneearthsangha.org/articles/the-old-man-who-lost-his...
- mejutoco 11mo ago
  I think this is one of these cases where talking in abstract terms does not help people agree. What I am hearing is if you remove context (and timing, lets say it is part of context) then there is no good or bad. But who said to remove context? Arent we saying then there is good and bad depending on context? Many people, including myself, would agree in the abstract, while at the same time some situations being very clear once down to a real example. It reminds me of people claiming pain is an illusion or facts not existing (very edgy), until someone slaps them in the face to prove "I did slap you, that is a fact". I think that is reality, and specific examples are easier. P.S. I would add values into the context.

crabmusket 11mo ago

I think I confused two different discussions on Exponent. Here's one episode where they discuss the stack, particularly in reference to net neutrality: https://exponent.fm/episode-168-a-community-of-loonies/ https://exponent.fm/episode-168-a-community-of-loonies/ But I'm sure I remember an episode where they discuss Matthew Prince and some neo-nazi site. The "principle stack" is a separate concept which I haven't yet found.

crabmusket 11mo ago
Oh, silly me. It's the episode called "principle stacks", which I didn't notice skimming through the feed, nor did Google find it. https://exponent.fm/episode-177-principle-stacks/ https://exponent.fm/episode-177-principle-stacks/