@balrogboogie Perhaps we have different working definitions of FOSS. I mean simply access to source code/ shared knowledge. And that software should be free in the same way that the knowledge to make medicine _should_ be free. Are you using it in a more niche sense?

@pants @balrogboogie "free" is a trap word to obscure the flows of power. if you say "water should be free for Nestlé to come and fence it", you are empowering Nestlé to the detriment of people (BSD license). If you say "the rivers in our city should be freely accessible by fascist warships", you are giving resources to fascists (GPL Freedom 0).

The refusal of the free software movement to take a stance against capitalists has empowered capitalists, because Amazon can get a lot more power out of all the "freely" available code than individual workers can, in the same way that Nestlé can get a lot more power out of a spring than you can.

Moreover the very unspoken premise that this is a problem solvable by licenses in a legalist framework pressuposes that laws and courts are good and work for the people, preventing reforms of the real cause of software injustice: private ownership of the means of production. The freedom to see the source code means nothing if the server farms, networks, computer factories etc. are all controlled by a handful of capitalists.

@ramona @pants @balrogboogie @nodefunallowed This is what u were talking about!! so if not agpl.. what should we use?

@ajeremias @pants @balrogboogie @nodefunallowed putting software out in the agpl isn't a bad thing in itself. use it if it makes sense to your project. just be aware of the limitations of this approach. if you want to write something that capitalists might want to appropriate, and you want to object to that, try looking into the Anti-Capitalist License, the Cooperative Non-Violent License and other ethics-based licenses.

but licenses alone won't stop them, so the important thing is to keep organising and educating and agitating in other fronts.


@ramona @ajeremias @pants @balrogboogie or maybe consider spending your time making something important for the world that capitalists won't build instead of building something capitalists will likely appropriate

@be @ramona @pants @balrogboogie they will always appropriate thats why capitalism is so successful. radicalism is the only way :acab: :acclaim:

@be @ajeremias @pants @balrogboogie it's a great approach, where doable. some stuff you can't stop them from appropriating; the more general a tool (like a kernel), the more useful it can be also for capitalistic purposes. And in many cases capitalists can use strategies like embrace-and-extend – see what Google did with XMPP, Linux (as Android), and KHTML, all originally good tools that people put a lot of volunteer labour to help and empower other people, which they *did*, till the dragons added the treasures to their hoard.

I would say we need diversity of tactics here, try to program things that capitalists can't use or corrupt, put everything under ethically strict licenses, denounce them when they violate the licenses, fight for the narrative, dismantle belief in the system with daily acts of illegalism, organise in online and offline spaces, unionise, do stuff that is not computer stuff.... everybody can contribute something, according to their abilities (^ ~)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.