Like , and the , is yet another attempt at mususing the term to describe the software license equivalent of the licenses in the suite:

I sympathize with the concern driving these hybrid license experiments. I agree corporations parasitizing the software is a problem. But to me, the deeper problem is the corporation being the dominant model of political-economic governance. The more radical solution is replacing tech corporations (and startups aiming for IPO or acquisition) with networks of co-ops, which can collaborate to make sure all commons contributors can thrive. But these hybrid licenses make that harder.

When the phrase "" was coined, as a rebranding of "free software", the theory was that explaining the concept in more business-friendly language would make businesses more willing to release the code they fund as . 20 years later, the results are in, and it turns out that theory was wrong. We can debate at length about *why* tech companies extract far more value from free code than they contribute back to it, but that's what happens and there's no sign that's going to change.

So maybe talking more about was actually the stronger pitch after all? Maybe finding organizations that care about people's freedoms, and the democracies that depend on those freedoms, and talking to them about funding free code development is the way to go? Eg:

But a big part of this pitch is the software being usable by any member of the global public, for anything, as per the Free Software Definition.

@strypey I agree with the network of co-ops approach (and am preparing to start a small co-op focused on free software) but at the same time I understand the need for such licences. Just like an artist can choose the non-commercial Creative Commons clause, developers need options to increase their likelihood of making a livelihood (or at least, avoid the frustration of capitalists exploiting their labour for profit). This is especially true for solutions geared at end users (eg. SaaS apps or platforms) compared to infrastructure utilities or libraries/frameworks, which is where I see the biggest gaps (since most open source created within companies focuses on more generic lower level code rather than the functionality their business model depends on).

@mayel people experimenting with 'No Commercial Use' software licenses are well within their right to do so, just like people using other kinds of proprietary licensing. But calling that software "open source" is misleading. It isn't. Like "free software", the phrase "open source" has a widely accepted definition that has been around as long as the phrase itself. Total freedom of commercial use is explicitly required to meet either definition.

@strypey and because they didn't embrace the term #FreeSoftware, it enabled the hi-jacking of it for describing gratis proprietary software. University IT departments have a "Free Software" page and when you go there it's junk like MS Office.


Have you heard about Tidelift?
They are comitted to help maintainers get paid and by that keep softwares alive and up-to-date.

I feel it's a great step towards "fixing" the taking-without-giving mindset.

@noplanman yup, there are dozens of these projects. and , and , , and many more. Figuring out which one(s) to use and how to get them to work for you is hard. I've written about some of the reasons why:

The criticism coming from the No Commercial Use crowd is that these aren't bringing in a living wage for most core maintainers, let alone the same 6 figure salaries as working for the and VC-funded startups.

@strypey i've had some serious thoughts about using license zero for something.

i've spent a lot of hours having to teach myself how to code (no mentors, virtually never any help to speak of), giving most of what i've coded away for free, and the sum total i've gotten in return is not any of those things you speak of (jobs, grants, invitations to anything.) several years of dealing with open source and the total amount of money i've gotten was enough to buy one meal at a pancake shop.

i've been told i won't get paid because the person "just doesn't do crowdfunding, or microtransactions" and other shit like this.

i kind of see L0 as more the last ditch effort of people who still kind of believe in the mission of being able to customize your own hardware, but they are not the 0.1% of FOSS developers who get any real amount of support from anyone.

literally making shit quality porn games in twine has a higher likelihood of getting subsistence income than FOSS is to get you anything.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!