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.


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.

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!