Mastodawn

Erlend Sogge Heggen Nov 14

Shoutout to fellow traveler and void-yeller @zkat

https://toot.cat/@zkat/115129958258018665

Kat Marchán 🐈 (@[email protected])

Open source maintainers of major projects (hi) are not ready to accept and talk about how the cultural insistence on permissive licensing is just straight up labor exploitation taking advantage of our addiction to popularity (also hi). We’re doing this to ourselves too, you know.

Toot.Cat

AstraLuma Nov 14

@erlend i'll speak on this specifically:

indiscriminate use is a relic of a time when technologists held an idealistic view of social and power dynamcis, when we thought that everyone could get along and we just needed more acceptance.

It turns out, though, that antisocial people exist.

Erlend Sogge Heggen Nov 14

@astraluma yeh, Open Source Purity, let me introduce you to The Dark Triad.

https://natehagens.substack.com/p/dark-triad-personality-traits-how

Dark Triad Personality Traits: How Psychopathy, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism Impact Our Cultures & Social Systems

Reality Roundtable #19

The Great Simplification

Ember is so tired of people.

Nov 15

@erlend @astraluma let me introduce you to not spreading ableist nonsense? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZFQG2e87ZU

The Narcissist Scare

Top 10 signs you are ontologically evil! Number 7 will SHOCK you! Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: https://go.nebula.tv/sarahz---...

YouTube

Zack Nov 14

@erlend thanks for publishing this

kat Nov 14

@erlend this is such a good article.

I'm really happy to have stubbornly clung to licensing @conjured_ink's software under Parity 7.0 but I also agree that it's insufficient: the reason it works is largely because it scares of most of the undesirables by virtue of scaring off the Capitalists. Our answer to nazis and other horrible people using our software, though, is "we will literally not help you, we will shame you, and we will cook in landmines if we have to that you have to constantly patch out if you want to keep using our latest versions". Can't stop 'em completely but we can make it really annoying

Federico Mena Quintero Nov 14

@erlend @zkat this piece is tremendous.

Victor Villas Nov 14

@erlend This is a much necessary conversation. We know that this licensing purism comes from this anarchocapitalist maxim of “avoiding politics” which is in itself a political act.

We have plenty of historical evidence showing that, by not addressing reality as is, by overemphasizing the importance of an abstract hypothetical where software is not doing its maximum theoretical good, we’re letting it be unleashed for damage at scale.

Dio9sys Nov 14

@erlend Your writing is spot-on with this.

I'm reminded of two scenarios, one specific and one more general, that I've seen play out:

1. The browser Floorp is open source, now being co-maintained by a floorp-specific organization as well as the original programmer collective that got to work on it, Ablaze. Early in its life, they had to close Floorp source code for a little bit and reasses their licensing. This is because, with every new release of Floorp, a freerider would pull the code from git, change one or two assets, and then rerelease it as a browser called Midori, trying to drum up publicity for "their" new browser that was wholly taken off the back of the programmers at Ablaze. The floorp subreddit, for a while, seemed to be more angry that Floorp was temporarily closed source than they were at the kind of brazen code dropshipping that Midori was doing.

2. There's the trend of big companies releasing code that is technically open source, but which is clearly built for a very very specific corporate system. The software is so hard to configure, deploy and maintain that most people will not bother, and then the company sells their solution, where they do all that work for you. For some reason, when massive corporations do this it's seen as a net positive open sourcing of their code, even when it's purposely made with so many footguns as to be basically just source-available proprietary code. And yet, when smaller developers make source-available paid code, they're derided for not being "open" enough.

So much of open source thought has been weaponized and turned into a form of digital landlording. CC-BY-NC is a great step. I hope we see more licenses come out with specific boundaries around who or what can use the code without payment, and I hope we see some real legal precedent to give teeth to open source license enforcement.

The Nexus of Privacy Nov 14

@erlend really excellent article!

Ryan Nov 14

@erlend I loved every word of this essay. Thank you for voicing something that’s been bothering me for years. 100% support.

django Nov 15

@erlend “No one is coming down from up high to save us. We can only seize the levers of power that are within our reach. Licensing is a uniquely powerful lever because it is enacted as a bottom-up change at the level of individual agency whilst simultaneously being wielded with the top-down legal authority of nation states.”

django Nov 15

@erlend so many great nuggets in this piece,
I think this definitely helps move the conversation forward

all-inclusive gender resort Nov 15

@erlend
Yeah "free" as in "nazi-free" would be a pretty great freedom for open source to have about now...

Khleedril Nov 15

@erlend Fabulous essay. My problem with the world is that licensing is only as strong as the legal system which underpins it, and Nazis do not respect incumbent legal systems.

Just look at how Microsoft raped Github to feed its AI: the most outrageous software Nazi act ever.

nycki Nov 15

@erlend god damn, I didn't realize this needed to be said but you're right and you should say it!

Jenniferplusplus Nov 15

@erlend this more or less aligns with my thinking, but I would go further with it. I would suggest that public licenses are the problem, not merely indiscriminate ones. Because of you license it to "everyone except that one guy" that guy is on the honor system to respect your wishes. And we already don't trust that guy.

I think instead project governance should license to a common pool, which can then sublicense to specific people bring the pool, using basically the same mechanisms as proprietary projects. The pool can set conditions and negotiate terms, using access to the entire pool as leverage.

Irenes (many)Nov 15

@jenniferplusplus @erlend this feels like a hierarchical power structure that future generations of activists will have to dismantle after it inevitably becomes unjust

just our initial reaction; sorry to be negative. we do very much think creative thinking like this is important

Jenniferplusplus Nov 15

@ireneista @erlend maybe? I'm not sure I see the problem though. Usually with power hierarchies, taking part in the hierarchy is compulsory, and that's the root of the worst effects. That wouldn't be the case here. If, for example, the pool organized by the fsf is behaving in a way project maintainers don't approve of, they can leave the pool. They could join a different one, or go back to the old public license status quo.

the esoteric programmer Nov 15

@jenniferplusplus @ireneista @erlend they can leave the pool, but they can't fork the code and leave with it. And say, if that code is medical software someone needs, and if the pool which made it is a bunch of elitists who became fascists, imagine hyprland stuff, then what do we do? rewrite code over and over for different pools of licenses? and what happens when a pool essentially makes stuff that's useful, but mostly libraries, so the other pools trying to use that would have to join with the first one? that would be a concentration of monopoly, and if that pool lapses into the stuff we're trying to escape from today, what do we do? we can rewrite all that code, or use the thing and not complain, because we lost our ability to just fork it. Sure, forking is difficult, it's difficult even now, but under that system, forking, one of the essential powers we have as foss contributors and developers, would be pretty much taken away. We need stronger licenses, I agree, and this is already getting into the hard to define stuff, like how do you define this can't be used for military purposes? is someone trying to defend themselves from attacks using the software for military purposes? However, this way of doing it would make the issues worse, in my opinion at least.

Jenniferplusplus Nov 16

@esoteric_programmer @ireneista @erlend
That doesn't seem like a real problem. The medical device manufacturer can negotiate long term contracts, and they can pay someone to maintain the version of the software they do have, if for some reason they can't license future versions. We don't need to be held hostage by our past labor in order to have a functioning society

@jenniferplusplus @esoteric_programmer @erlend we're definitely going to have thoughts on this but we also definitely can't be in that headspace today (too much medical stuff going on). we have kind of a bad track record with rain checks on important philosophical topics, so we guess we'll just hope it comes up again. it probably will.

@jenniferplusplus @ireneista @erlend I dk how sustainable that is, because if there are security fixes for example, you can't pull them in, and as such, you would have to duplicate the work pretty much. Yes, we need more than foss, but making copyright even more complicated and constraining than before isn't something we should do imo, after all, we all saw what happened with the rights to sampling in music, the last time we tried to change copyright to be more restrictive. I'm thinking that licenses like the I'm so tired license that go to social's packages on yunohost use would be a very, very good first step, because making cohorts of people who are explicitly allowed to look at software someone else produces isn't only against the original foss which we established isn't updated for the current era of exploitation we live in so it doesn't really matter to this discussion, but it's also against furthering the societal values of collaboration, mutual aid and stuff like that which we want to see in the world. This goes back to allowlist vs denylist federation as well I think, but maybe we should solve the human problem of nazis using our software to do harm to our community with the human solution of not allowing the nazis in our community in the first place?

@jenniferplusplus @ireneista @erlend and what do you mean by we can't be held back by our past labor? like the issues where we can't relicense a program without everyone agreeing?

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend we're not really able to explain this properly right now, but it feels to us like it has the same general "holding yourself hostage" shape as professional licensing systems do, and the same complex ethical quandaries

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend because to the extent such a system works as a tool for change, it is also resistant to efforts by its members to hold it accountable to its stated purpose

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend if that doesn't make sense, we apologize but it's probably the best we can do right now. we're not all here.

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend for a proper explanation we'd have to do some creative thought to kinda connect that piece to the proximate stuff, and we can't do creative thought right now, so all you get is the stuff we've said before

Jenniferplusplus Nov 16

@ireneista @esoteric_programmer @erlend
That is what i meant, yes. For some reason, people act like doing foss work creates a perpetual obligation to keep doing maintenance on that original work. It doesn't. That past labor doesn't create any future obligation whatsoever. That's something that would need to be explicitly negotiated and agreed to.

@jenniferplusplus @ireneista @erlend O yes, for sure it doesn't. I have a project I started a few years ago, but some better stuff came along, so I didn't continue it, it'd be weird if I had to perpetually maintain it. But yeah, I guess the key point here is that we do need better licenses than just the gpl, and we also have to balance that with not becoming what we fight against, aka techno-feudalism, which is hard indeed

Jenniferplusplus Nov 16

@esoteric_programmer @ireneista @erlend
Yes. It sounds like you're identifying the software recipient's right to repair. Which is important. But I don't think there's any inherent conflict with the software author's right to (refuse to) associate with people.

@jenniferplusplus @ireneista @erlend O yes! I mean, I wouldn't accept contributions from nazis either, nor would I willingly give them the stuff I make, but shouldn't a denylist be more appropriate than an allowlist here? Of course, I don't mean denylist as in this specific company or whatever can't use it, but it can't be used for this purpose

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend we're also just mindful of, like....

any sort of group decision-making mechanism here, wields a fair amount of under-the-radar power. think for example about what a big deal it is that Benevity imposes eligibility criteria for all the donation matching programs it administers

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend back in the early days there was this idea of a license coming with a right to distribute under a newer version of the same license, and that lasted only until RMS had goals for the GPL3 that Linus did not share

@esoteric_programmer @jenniferplusplus @erlend which, like.... it's a shame that didn't work out, putting it in the user's court like that. that would have been nice and simple, if things worked that way.

@ireneista @jenniferplusplus @erlend yes, very much this also! I mean, imagine being a person in need of financial aid for a surgery or something, and one of the donation aggregators, maybe the biggest, says that they shouldn't identify with their nation or tribe when receiving those donations, because they don't want to care about that, for example. And then, in order to receive those donations, the person may have to, for example, divest themselves of accessories which generally belong to the indigenous people of their region and upload a new profile picture without that. Is that fair? hell no! is that a thing which could happen in the real world? hmm no, I don't think in this way, but it might have those unintended ramifications eventually.

I mean, let's say such a group first says no nazis. Sure, I'm OK with that, I'd enthusiastically license my stuff under something like that. But then, generations change, people come and go, and then suddenly it's no trans people or something like that.

I mean, I'm an anarchist, or at least trying to understand enough to call myself one at any rate, so I despise hierarchy in general. If we're building a better system anyways, why are we starting with what makes this system so exploitative in the first place, like copyright?

Mark Hughes Dec 1

@jenniferplusplus

What Irenes said. If you can achieve your aim without that 👏
@erlend

R̸̜̕ò̴͓s̵͈͠s̷̮͗Nov 15

@erlend 🤦I actually thought this was about electricity and how to "open source" it 🤦

Billy Smith Nov 15

@be4zley @erlend

For that, take a look here:

https://fbrc.dev/

– Flow Battery Research Collective

Open-Source Flow Battery Community

Flow Battery Research Collective

Dan Stowell Nov 15

@erlend Fascinating thoughts - thank you. It had never occurred to me that in open source we've neglected the famous "paradox of tolerance" since the very beginning! https://conversational-leadership.net/tolerance-is-a-social-contract/

Tolerance Is A Social Contract, Not a Moral Absolute | Conversational Leadership

Tolerance enables peaceful coexistence among diverse populations. However, viewing tolerance as an unconditional moral imperative can be problematic. To maintain a stable society, we must recognize that tolerance has limits and requires mutual respect and adherence to social contracts.

Conversational Leadership

Phie Lux

Nov 15

@erlend "Open source needs better licenses" is a bullet point in the outline of a piece I want to write. It's nice to see that it's not an original idea. I'll need to dig into all of your links, because it looks like everything I want to write about has already been covered.

My spin on it is that current common open source licenses are flawed because they are based on libertarian ideals. At best liberatrianism is easily exploited, and at worst yesterday's libertarians are today's fascists. I suggest that what we need instead are licenses based on collectivist ideals. We also need to include anti-authoritarianism, anti-fascism, and anti-exploitation (or I'd state it as anti-capitalist.)

We also need better open source governance. A collectivist license does no good without a collective after all. Plus there are all the problems with the "benevolent dictator" model.

gds Nov 15

@erlend Huh... Now I'm wondering what it'd be like if programmers got royalties, rather than being paid up front for a wholesale handover of the copyright.

Would we be motivated to write longer-lasting less throwaway code if we knew it'd have a chance of paying us back in the future?

Would the entities that buy the code from us be less enamoured of turning everything into a rent-seeking service if they had to pass some of that rent back to the folks who built the thing?

I guess not -- publishers still like renting media to the public even when they do have to pay royalties...

Florian Berger (privat)Nov 15

@erlend

Damn, this is fire! 🔥

indigo Nov 16

You onboarded me on Discourse in 2018 with open-source hosting. I've been contributing to various open source projects since 2004. I've made a thesis about the outsourcing of network monitoring functions in 2008. The cloud was in its beginnings. A particular open-source project that targets enterprises. I call myself a paid full-time contributor. I've experienced how open source projects stumbled to build business models with open source projects. How open source popped up, until we talk now about commercial open source and public open source. I enjoyed reading your article, and it triggered many things I've experienced firsthand. Thank you for writing this up. It might be the trigger, to put all my notes I still have over the years with a similar topic, I've never was able to publish :)

Erlend Sogge Heggen Nov 17

@indigo hope you’ll get something published! Judging by the unexpectedly positive reception of this article, I think the open software crowd is ready to talk more critically about our movement (or the absence of it) now, so it can mature into something more holistically pro-social.

Klaus Frank Nov 17

@erlend For that they'd have to honor the licenses to begin with...

Just look at all of the "AI" grifters. They give a shit about the licenses...

Garrett builds web sites Nov 18

@erlend I feel like if you want to limit the source and usage of your software by certain people & entities, you can no longer call it "open source." You really need another term, even if it's something corny like "ajar source."

Of course defining terms is an entirely other matter. I am not a kneejerk Reddit-style leftist. Am I a "nazi?" Many think so. I'm also a small business owner. Am I a "megacorpo?" Again, many think so. But if you ban people like me from your code, not many will be left.

Bart Louwers Nov 23

@erlend > Is it really that crazy to imagine a community-governed and institution-owned package management stack that's licensed such that corporations have to pay their fair share, to the tune of some tens of millions of dollar per year in *revenue*?

If it is a package management stack is not open source I am not touching it with a ten-foot pole. That goes for Vite+ too.

Bart Louwers Nov 23

@erlend > The Rust-lang package utility crates.io and all of its accompanying infrastructure is licensed as permissively as possible with MIT and Apache v2. Why? Is anyone forking and remixing crates.io for personal use?

The reason why open source is so great is that if it is mismanaged, or perceived to be mismanaged, a fork is at least possible. It is one of the greatest protections against enshittification.