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.

Show thread

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.

Show thread

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 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.

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!