• 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