• hglman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s short but to the point, use AGPL and the problem is capitalism.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Such a license would allow commercial use by worker cooperatives. I understand that software freedom as it has been defined excludes such licenses, but I would argue that this position is wrong. There is nothing unfree about preventing firms based on workplace autocracy from exploiting the commons and the workers that work on the commons and the workers in their own firms @linux

  • will_a113@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is a good, short read. For those who are unfamiliar with the AGPL license that the author proposes we all start using, the main difference (and I am not a lawyer) is that under the AGPL, the source code including any modifications must also be made available to all users interacting with the software over a network. This prevents companies from making proprietary versions of AGPL software that are only accessible as a web service, which is one of the big ways that corporations are able to profit from GPL source code contributions these days.

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    I started using GitHub before Microsoft bought it, what should I be using instead? GitLab? Codeberg? Something else?

  • nikaaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Very interesting read.

    I also like how, at the end, it changed perspective to say “actually, our problem is not software, but politics”.

    We must be aware of what agents we encourage and discourage through our actions.