On Open Source and the Sustainability of the Commons par Ploum - Lionel Dricot.
  • J Lou@mastodon.social
    31·
    5 months ago

    What I am suggesting is using a license that disallows capitalist firms completely from using the software not AGPL, which still allows them to use the software as long as they provide source code. In other words, copyfarleft that only extends use rights to non-capitalist commons-based economic entities-like worker coops. The project can then dual license to capitalist firms charging them for the right to use the software. This would give them a source of funding to fund any legal fights @linux

    • The Doctor@beehaw.orgEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      I get that, but it won’t help. That was one of the motivations behind the AGPL, and it hasn’t really worked for all the reasons I gave. Work for enough companies and you see it over and over again.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        3·
        5 months ago

        @drwho The difference in my mind is that AGPL doesn’t come with a builtin business model to fund the legal fights when they become necessary. Such a copyfarleft license does by charging capitalist firms a licensing fee for using the software. These funds can then be used for paying project developers and funding license enforcement for those that choose to use the software without paying the licensing fee @linux

        • The Doctor@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          5 months ago

          I ask from a position of ignorance, because I simply don’t know: Has anyone actually done this? Has it worked?

      • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
        2·
        5 months ago

        AGPL, hasn’t worked

        What are your thoughts on SSPL? I’m on the fence and leaning towards SSPL, or at least needing a more restrictive AGPL. I believe the FSF is too ideological and the OSI has a conflict of interest and that’s why the two reject it. Though I believe SSPL may be poorly thought out.