@balrogboogie I don't know... Wouldn't that be like saying language is bad because capitalists use it for marketing or medicine is bad because capitalists use it to exhort people and pressure governments, or access to water is bad because capitalists use it to power factories and return it polluted? I'd argue the problem is never free and open access- the problem is capitalists. :guillotine:

@pants language: no, because language isn't a product of labor
medicine: no, but the privatization of medicine is
water: no, again because it is not the product of labor

of course capitalists are bad, but these days FOSS is almost entirely controlled by capitalists. there is no FOSS community that isn't driven in part or in total by the wants and needs of corporations, and pretending otherwise does nothing but strengthen that control

@balrogboogie Perhaps we have different working definitions of FOSS. I mean simply access to source code/ shared knowledge. And that software should be free in the same way that the knowledge to make medicine _should_ be free. Are you using it in a more niche sense?

@pants @balrogboogie "free" is a trap word to obscure the flows of power. if you say "water should be free for Nestlé to come and fence it", you are empowering Nestlé to the detriment of people (BSD license). If you say "the rivers in our city should be freely accessible by fascist warships", you are giving resources to fascists (GPL Freedom 0).

The refusal of the free software movement to take a stance against capitalists has empowered capitalists, because Amazon can get a lot more power out of all the "freely" available code than individual workers can, in the same way that Nestlé can get a lot more power out of a spring than you can.

Moreover the very unspoken premise that this is a problem solvable by licenses in a legalist framework pressuposes that laws and courts are good and work for the people, preventing reforms of the real cause of software injustice: private ownership of the means of production. The freedom to see the source code means nothing if the server farms, networks, computer factories etc. are all controlled by a handful of capitalists.

@ramona @pants @balrogboogie @nodefunallowed This is what u were talking about!! so if not agpl.. what should we use?

@ajeremias @pants @balrogboogie @nodefunallowed putting software out in the agpl isn't a bad thing in itself. use it if it makes sense to your project. just be aware of the limitations of this approach. if you want to write something that capitalists might want to appropriate, and you want to object to that, try looking into the Anti-Capitalist License, the Cooperative Non-Violent License and other ethics-based licenses.

but licenses alone won't stop them, so the important thing is to keep organising and educating and agitating in other fronts.

@ramona @ajeremias @pants @balrogboogie or maybe consider spending your time making something important for the world that capitalists won't build instead of building something capitalists will likely appropriate

Follow

@be @ramona @pants @balrogboogie they will always appropriate thats why capitalism is so successful. radicalism is the only way :acab: :acclaim:

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Coletivos.org

Nós somos um coletivo que fornece espaço a outros coletivos na internet, para debater, partilhar, conversar, mail e uma rede social! Queremos um espaço na internet onde sejamos soberanos dos nossos dados e das nossas redes, sendo a confiança criada através de de provas de cooperação. coletivos.org