• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Fuck this bullshit. This problem was of your own making, Bruce, by pushing “Open Source” and permissive licensing over “Free Software” and copyleft.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      He’s talking about compensation to developers.

      How would “Free Software” help with getting developers paid vs. “Open Source Software”?

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        First of all, that’s not really the point. The goal of Free Software was always about trying to ensure users maintained sovereignty over their computers, so they couldn’t be exploited by DRM and other forms of enshittification.

        Second, while copyleft doesn’t get developers paid directly, it does at least given them a fairer chance to compete on more equal footing with big tech companies that would otherwise embrace and (closed-source) extend if it were permissively-licensed.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          First of all, that’s not really the point.

          It’s not your point but It’s exactly the point of what Bruce is trying to do though.

          You can’t pay bills with “software freedom”. And when the industry starts to depend on some random developer in Nebraska it becomes a problem for everyone.

        • CapitalistSusScrofa@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Second, while copyleft doesn’t get developers paid directly, it does at least given them a fairer chance to compete on more equal footing with big tech companies that would otherwise embrace and (closed-source) extend if it were permissively-licensed.

          This is throughtout a group where significant members are in frequent communication. It maybe wasn’t clear 30 years ago, but organization and centralization of contributors is arguably more obvious today. Equal footing would be able to demand more because of powers like unionization.

          I don’t even know if people who are primarily licensing would have that goal. It’s seems common for someone in this type of position to already have really good career/pay options, they may not see a purpose for organization

    • MinekPo1@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      not entirely sure but this doesn’t feel like something the fsf would like . most definetly it violates freedoms 0. because it discriminates against companies with over 5 M$ in income and against people living in Japan (see 2.14 , though I’m not sure its enough to qualify) , and possibly by restricting what you can do with the software , though I’m not sure on that one . it also violates freedoms 2. and 3. by requiring publicly releasing your changes (fsf requires that free software licenses allow for private modifications) and possibly by requiring contacting the licensor or the post-open administration though I’m unsure of if it does (entering into a post-open source zero-cost / paid contract seems to me to imply contacting either the licensor or the post-open administration) .

      further reading :