Bug: Not GPL. :-) · Issue #834 · uutils/coreutils
github.com
Hi, I love this project, but infrastructural software really should be under the GPL. It's very important that distributed software can be fixed by the end user, which the MIT licenses & fr...

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/119645

The amount of libertarian ideology present in FOSS is shocking

Yeah, I can’t believe the shit liberals say (hehe) sometimes…

  • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.ml
    5·
    2 years ago

    Thank you, this was an interesting read. The issue of SaaS is a good point. Basically, if I understand you correctly, the problem is that the GPLs and the like don’t do enough to prohibit major capitalists from furthering their own goals, which are obviously in contrast with basically everyone else’s, so we should use licenses that explicitly prohibit commercial use unless all surplus value is distributed among the worker-owners in a co-op. I can definitely get behind that idea.

    • CommunistWolf@lemmygrad.ml
      61·
      2 years ago

      Thanks. I’ve been throwing these ideas at various walls for a few years now, trying to get something that sticks, and that isn’t immediately rejected out-of-hand by FOSS advocates 😅

      Yeah, you’re pretty much spot on. These big fish are using the tools we build “for anyone” to construct a prison for us, right in plain sight, and we just… keep building the tools? How does that make sense?

      • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, I’ve never seen this type of license before (aside from CC BY-NC, which doesn’t have an exception for co-ops and doesn’t seem to be widely used for code), but it makes sense. I think a lot of people (like me) find licenses rather complex and tend to flock to the most popular ones, and it’s not as easy to convince someone to use a license that’s drastically different to what they’re used to (as opposed to, for example, MIT vs. BSD 2/3-clause, or GPL vs. MPL).

      • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.ml
        1·
        2 years ago

        They can redistribute the code, but only under the same (or a compatible) license. Whether it’s better depends on the type of software – if a company can use it as a service (without redistributing it, e.g. as part of a server), GPL3 won’t prevent it from using the code in its own commercial product without making the product’s code publicly available.