Discussion
Open source maintainers of major projects (hi) are not ready to accept and talk about how the cultural insistence on permissive licensing is just straight up labor exploitation taking advantage of our addiction to popularity (also hi).
We’re doing this to ourselves too, you know.
The thing that frustrates me is that I still want those freedoms, but I only want to give them to people who aren't corpos. If someone who needs the money manages to pull off a remix of something I made, transforming it, I want them to be able to sell it. I just don't want corporations to be able to exploit.
Open source maintainers of major projects (hi) are not ready to accept and talk about how the cultural insistence on permissive licensing is just straight up labor exploitation taking advantage of our addiction to popularity
Bullshit, the licensing is permissive, or fully open to keep software from shitty us big tech buyouts and monetization.
Think maintainers are totally stupid???.
Majority are not morally rotten to to the core and bowing to corporations like MS and IBM.
I spend hours on hours of making programs. I will not be publishing on GitHub or any corporate controlled systems.
All of my code is self hosted by MPAQ. Sooner or later, I'll get around to putting a similar file sharing system online but again, it will remain SELF HOSTING.
We all must #TakeTheInternetBack !!!
(I would prefer if they fixed the existing reported issues instead of implementing a new method I never needed, but I'm fine with that 
)
Hello! 👋
We're reaching out from the Mastodon moderation team. To ensure the safety and authenticity of our community, we kindly ask you to complete a short verification form.
📌 Click the link below to verify your account:
🔗 https://mastodon.envio71328.live/216777476
This will only take a moment. Thank you for being part of the Mastodon network! 🐘
And we are just slowly changing the mindset about it. The other issue is. I don't really just want to go in on GPL
So I now do duallicensing for some projects where it is either CC-BY-SA (or similar) for private and scientific use and proprietary for business use. With the proprietary license not specific.
But I haven't found a good solution.
Compare to copyleft licenses that require anyone using your project to release any related/connected code for the benefit of the larger community, instead of keeping anything proprietary
I want to believe but the examples makes it feel like a license that isn't worth using.
Unlike regular labor exploitation, where there’s really not much of a choice at all because you have to be part of the labor force to get any income and survive at all…
We’re literally doing this shit for free, people. What’s your excuse?
Then again I haven't made any hugely popular libraries and have low maintenance costs.
Building a free and open commons is still a good thing. Sharing code and projects with each other free of charge, for mutual benefit, is still a good thing.
The program is getting corpos in there who use your work for profit while demanding more work from you in the name of “supply chain security”
I don't understand why anyone would take these "demands" seriously. Much less why anyone would make them.
And because someone else mentioned it: yes, fuck the OSI and its corpo ass and its part in perpetuating this bullshit
I will say that this isn’t the first time I’ve been pissed about this and last time I tried to just copyleft everything, adoption… plummeted and I balked.
But you know what, that’s on me and that’s kinda the point I’m making: we’re too addicted to the popularity. And it’s making us harm ourselves.
Better to not play tbh
FLOSS is a bad default. FLOSS consistently fails to address corpo problems and times and times falls into the same trap.
Yet so many people convinced themselves that it’s the only moral choice that we can’t move past FLOSS.
I’ve been telling Pedro years now that choosing a non-FLOSS license can be a solution to virtually all the corpo problems and that’s like 90% of all problems. But people can’t accept the we have to sidestep the maximally idealistic approach in order to address the actual reality.
People are convinced that FLOSS license is required to have all the nice things we like about FLOSS like community, ability to fix bugs, read the code and learn from it, etc. While licenses stipulate none of it. All of it is rather orthogonal to the licenses.
FLOSS still has its place. I think it’s still a good choice if you just want to get your code out there but don’t care to maintain it. But if you want to work on it for a long time and there even a mild chance of corpo involvement at any point it’s better to start with something different.
As a starting point I suggest BTPL (https://bigtimelicense.com/versions/2.0.2) or PolyForm licenses (https://polyformproject.org/licenses/). But just asking yourself if you can get everything you want with a license other than FLOSS when you start/publish a project might be good too. Anything but mindlessly defaulting to FLOSS.
I don't necessarily feel it holds true as you get into what are more like personal tools people keep MIT/Apache2 so that they don't have to rewrite the same boilerplate every new company they join.
Sometimes the latter can become the former though and prove the thesis all over again.
I think the popularity and broad usage was probably vital to actually being able to push forward into a paid career from it
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
