I think "open source" is hollow, dead, or dying...

I just noticed when updating python redis library, it had some new features, but they are only in "redis stack" (not redis OSS) which is "Redis Source Available License" and Server Side Public License (SSPL).

"Open source" was the capitalism friendly twist on "free software", and now seems more suited to big closed source corps that release a few pieces to lure us in, in a way they can still economically benefit from.

1/

For independent software producers though, it's seemed increasingly hard to make it economically viable as a core proposition. So lots of open core.

What about the moral / ethical perspective on sharing code as a commons for all to benefit from? Did that get lost?

2/

My hypothesis is that without a wider commons-based economy to be a part of, it's not going to work. Morals and ethics conflict with profit and capitalist economic viability.

There are seeds though, a number of projects can sustain themselves financially from user contributions.

There is a risk of capitalist exploitation though, hence all the new more restricted licenses.

I would love a license to emerge that is backed by an commons-esque economic model.

3/3

@nick
EDIT: Requires a formal definition of #theCommons re #software.

The worst part is there are no FOSS #modems/#wifi. None. Especially not ones available in #Australia. (EDIT: Is #telecommunications part of "the commons"? Yes.)

As the world slips into #technoFeudalism, we are simultaneously losing #communication with supporters over this.

Things are really quite bad.

Your post wishes for a "license to emerge", but what is wrong with the #GPLv3 license?

#foss #fossFirmware #firmware

@dsfgs I like #GPLv3 and it's my preferred license today (or #AGPLv3).

I don't think it is sufficiently embedded in a viable economic model though.

I also like some of the additional aspects that initiatives like https://ethicalsource.dev pursue - a broader sense of justice.

The FSF/GNU 4 freedoms is a bit limited in comparison https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

Ethical Source: Open Source, Evolved.

The Organization for Ethical Source is a global, multidisciplinary community devoted to centering justice, equity, and human rights in the practice of open source.

@dsfgs and yes, would need formal definitions of commons software production, maybe there are other options too.

I like this Community Supported Economy model (https://gemeinschaftsgetragen.de/en/) which is commons-esque enough for my taste.

We are exploring how that would look like in a software project within @karrot project.

Gemeinschaftsgetragenes Wirtschaften – Aus Produzierenden und Konsumierenden wird eine Prosument*innengemeinschaft

@nick

It appears to us that #ethicalSource.dev is served on Goo' servers, so we deem it unethically-served, and thus are ethically bound not view it.

Is there a better source?

#gOoGlE #screwgle

@nick @dsfgs Justice is to not limit individuals how they use their computers, un-ethical source is the anti-thesis of the software freedom movement. There is nothing limited, by design, about the four software freedoms.

@amszmidt I am interested in justice in a wider sense than only the relation between a person and the computer/software they use.

I think licenses can and do play a part in that.

Additionally freedom to modify software is not something most people can actually do, freedoms which people cannot make use of in practise are also less interesting to me.

@dsfgs

@nick @dsfgs That most people cannot modify a program is not very relevant, most people are not capable of writing a book either, but that does not mean one should seek justice and punishment by limiting basic rights to read and writing or even modifying books. Unethical source licenses are unethcial since they also limit ethical usage of the program.
@nick @dsfgs consider the β€œNo Harm” license .. which prohibits use in war. What if Starlink used that code? Would it be ethical to prohibit Ukraine from using said software? It isn’t far fetched, starlink contains free software. It is better to let the democratic system decide on what justice means.

@amszmidt it's definitely complicated, I don't think the 4 freedoms let's us escape that complexity though.

our current democratic systems are not very good at this "justice" thing as I see it, hence I think we need to demand justice from a wider range of institutions and practises.

@dsfgs

@nick @dsfgs What is complicated exactly, if we stick to software freedom? I agree that the overall democratic system .. has many faults.

@amszmidt if somebody wants to produce software and share it with humanity through FOSS licensing, it might get used for perpetuating war, genocide, and all sorts of other horrible things. that is not good.

also, what I said before, a freedom is not sufficient if somebody cannot make use of it (I don't mean to take it away, I mean to augment it with additional practises).

@dsfgs

@nick @dsfgs If someone wants to write a book and share it with humanity, it might get used for ... that is not good. See the fallacy in the argument? Should the Art of War be limited?

Software Freedom _is_ sufficient, you can ask someone else to do it for you. It is not much more different than being allowed (not able) to fix your car.

@amszmidt to me this is about taking similar kinds of sentiments as FSF/GNU/rms did (e.g. "Freedom means having control over your own life." - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html) and really seeing how to support those.

Software is so embedded in society and economy (far more so than the four freedoms might have imagined?), so I think wider considerations of how software licensing relates to justice (or freedom) is interesting.

@dsfgs

Free Software Is Even More Important Now - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

@nick @dsfgs It is generally more important to have the ability to do something, than being capable. If you do not have the ability, you will never be capable... Not being capable though, that is a personal choice.

@amszmidt

> Not being capable though, that is a personal choice.

I don't think that is true.

I am out of time/desire for debating it though, I think we could be here for a long time otherwise πŸ˜‚ ... we are not converging (and maybe not learning).

thanks for your perspectives though.

@dsfgs

@nick @dsfgs Which is why I said generally, reading and writing these days is a universal human right. Software, music, etc are rather individually acquired skills. I would hope that someday basic programming skills would be on the same page as mathematics, universally.

@amszmidt I don't find concepts of "basic" rights so compelling, I am more interested in what is actually possible in practise.

it's a different philosophical perspective, but I don't claim to be better or more right, just what interests me. I might be arguing for more basic rights if we had fewer.

books seem to have quite a lot of limitations around them, e.g. copyright, and particularly if you want to modify them.

@dsfgs

@nick @dsfgs The situation with books is exactly the same situation as with software. The same legal frameworks surrounds them.
@amszmidt @nick @dsfgs They definitely can't modify the code if they're not allowed to, and they mightn't consider poking around if it's made hard. Beware optimising for "most people aren't programmers".
@hayley @dsfgs @nick The whole thing is on the chams of "these books are only for the intelligent"...
@amszmidt @dsfgs @nick And you'll get that would you make barriers to writing, then you can use that to justify barriers once more, because no one writes. Quite a self-fulfilling thing.

(Mildly related: an now-infamous submarine company wasn't keen on testing their ships, citing that structural faults were rare. They were rare because everyone else tested.)
@hayley @dsfgs @nick @amszmidt
another issue is that the idea that we can alter the legal/economic system to respect the commons with a writ when there are things that will override it such as eminent domain/enclosure of the commons.

@nick @amszmidt
Re #democracy: we don't have it. GFC: Banks print money for *themselves*. Protestors quashed in #corporateMedia.

Democracy isnt a 1-in-4 year thing. It happen everytime one spends money/energy. So when Central Bank (read: #monopoly) engages in tillony, printing money disproportionately for the benefit of #oligarchs, they kill democracy.

DogCoinPusher, mentioned above is a darling of DARPA. Forget anything sound there. Amazon/Goo/CloudGlare/MShaft = fascist moneyLosers.

@dsfgs @nick yeah β€œwe” do. Maybe the USA doesn’t. But the USA isn’t the world.
@dsfgs @nick And _if_ you don't have democracy .. then you have bigger problems than T1 ISPs...

@[email protected] @amszmidt
CAGEMAFIA are an arm and in many ways facilitators of the #totalitarianism.

Eg. in #Australia all our banks with the exception of a couple, are now #CAGEMAFIA. Almost every single one, including #creditUnions.

Nice to hear your country has some sense, where is it.

@nick @amszmidt
Unfortunately @nick, there seems to be no way to learn about (and use?) Karrot without CloudGlare, M'Shaft and Goo'. Maybe you know a way?
@dsfgs I'd like it to be usable without any of that, can you tell me which tool or technique you use to find out? I'll see what I can do, although might take some time....