Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
#RFC: Unionize Free Software.
Today #FOSS can be exploited by #BigTech. We need to united free software development and collectively provide a counter to big and exploitative tech, that takes free software as gratis labor and undermines it as soon as free software developers demand anything in return - even if it's just to release your own source code depending on #FOSS as #FOSS.
Thus I present to you: "Unionize Free Software".
@csddumi I'd like to comment that my advocacy in response to seeing this exploitation of our labor is to advise being more mindful in regards to the projects we tackle.
Centralized services, JavaScript frameworks, big data analysis, etc are always the first things to be exploited. So try going more decentralized... Try making a GTK or Qt app...
This approach can go far, but sure. Not all the way.
> to limit or define what constitutes “proper”,“sustainable” or “reliable” free software is to limit these freedoms by limiting how they are exercised “properly”, “sustainably” or “reliably”.
/1
@alcinnz
I say that because of just such considerations: Free Software shouldn't change the problems that it works on just in order to avoid exploitation. Instead we need to challenge the exploiters and demand equal and fair treatment. Whether this means that big tech should open source the projects they developed based on #FOSS or that they have to financially support #FOSS developers depends on the developers themselves
@csddumi I can appreciate such a viewpoint, but I do question the utility of these most-exploited domains.
Centralized services require, even more than anything else, require additional governance to deliver the benefits of free software. Not to mention p2p tech is advancing...
JavaScript (or rather the DOM) I don't view as sustainable, once Google for whatever reason looses interest the ecosystem will crumble.
And the only valid use for big data I see is science...
@alcinnz those are fine arguments and discussions to have.
But I do not think we should build these considerations into the system for sustaining free software.
Sustaining Free Software should not change free software's subjects - the freedoms of the developers.
@alcinnz @thatguyoverthere @mathew @Hyolobrika @humanetech @TMakarios I posted a summary and my response to the arguments provided in this thread in a response to the post on the #SocialCoding Forum:
I still say that proper license selection should be all that is required. If there is no suitable license for your needs, I am sure there are avenues to create a new license model more inline with your particular concept of free software. One thing I don't know if you have considered is that many of the people hired by these big companies are the same hobbyists who in their free time also develop software off the clock. If they felt like their labor was being exploited by the company they could always coordinate a protest or walkout to make some noise. I've never heard of anything like this happening except for the political noise you sometimes hear out of facebook or twitter (also opensource powered companies who have "given back" to some degree).
Keep in mind I do not like these companies. I feel a little icky defending their use of community developed software as non-exploitative. There are plenty of other ways we are all being exploited by them. I just think our licenses should say what we mean, and if they don't that would be a better area to focus some attention than trying to get everyone to wave the same flag.
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @humanetech @alcinnz @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
Waving the same flag. I can certainly see why my proposal would could lead to this - as long as we persume that:
a) these groups would be closed gardens with strong gate keepers
b) that there was only a monopoly or duopoly of them
c) that only a monopoly or duopoly could act effectively.
I don't think any of these assumptions need to be true. There can be multiple of these groups - only coordinating when the need arises.
@csddumi @thatguyoverthere @mathew @humanetech@mastodon.social @TMakarios@theres.life @Hyolobrika@mstdn.io An existing one worth pointing out: The Software Freedom Conservancy!
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @humanetech @alcinnz @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
A great example of exploitative pratices regarding #FOSS is probably #TruthSocial - which also highlights a problem with the argument, that you just need to tweak the license and everything will be fine.
Because as long as copyright infringements (and thus license term violations) have to be declared by the copyright holder - giving them the sole responsibility to enforce these license terms in a court of law.
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @humanetech @alcinnz @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
I'm personally unable to prosecute anyone violating license terms on my copyright - at least at the moment.
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @alcinnz @humanetech @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
The problem was that #TruthSocial did violate the terms of AGPLv3 that Mastodon is licensed under. They claimed all the source code that they used was their proprietary property - while using Mastodon.
The problem here is that this had to first be established and the rule breaking then had to be enforced by the Mastodon gGmbH.
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2021/10/trumps-new-social-media-platform-found-using-mastodon-code/
It is possible they were planning to rip people off, and if they had done so the license would have provided a legal pathway to resolution.
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @alcinnz @humanetech @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
You are of the opinion that all that will be necessary to institute any fair relationship between #FOSS and their dependents is the choice of license.
Once a license is chosen, they can only be changed with a lot of effort.
I mean, look at Linux. Today updating the license to GPLv3 or any other license will almost be impossible, because there are too many contributors.
/1
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @alcinnz @humanetech @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
So, why do you think that unforeseen situations may undermine the spirit of the license but not it's wording?
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @alcinnz @humanetech @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
And had Mastodon gGmbH (and only them) not sent a complaint they would have continued to be violated.
That's my problem with licenses: They can only be enforced by the holder of the copyright that they relate to. Which for anyone without access to lawyers or legal experience is a high threshold.
@thatguyoverthere @mathew @csddumi @humanetech@mastodon.social @TMakarios@theres.life @Hyolobrika@mstdn.io At which point its worth noting The Software Freedom Conservancy does litigation (mostly just threats) for the projects under their umbrella. Also they're advocating for courts to allow impacted users to be able to bring these cases, which I've seen a little controversy over since that doesn't have any basis in copyright law.
@alcinnz @mathew @csddumi @humanetech @TMakarios @Hyolobrika
Very cool. Pertinent to the discussion, here is actually the Vizio case where end users rather than the license holder are being represented in court based on the user [consumer] rights protected by GPL.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
The GPL is a copyleft license that ensures end users the freedom to run, study, share, and modify the software. Copyleft is a kind of software licensing that leverages the restrictions of copyright, but with the intent to promote sharing (using copyright licensing to freely use and repair software).
Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit organization focused on ethical technology, is filing the lawsuit as the purchaser of a product which has copylefted code. This approach makes it the first legal case that focuses on the rights of individual consumers as third-party beneficiaries of the GPL.
“That’s what makes this litigation unique and historic in terms of defending consumer rights,” says Karen M. Sandler, the organization’s executive director.
According to the lawsuit, a consumer of a product such as this has the right to access the source code so that it can be modified, studied, and redistributed (under the appropriate license conditions).
“We are asking the court to require Vizio to make good on its obligations under copyleft compliance requirements,” says Sandler. She explains that in past litigation, the plaintiffs have always been copyright holders of the specific GPL code. In this case, Software Freedom Conservancy hopes to demonstrate that it’s not just the copyright holders, but also the receivers of the licensed code who are entitled to rights.
@csddumi It looks like as far back as 2015 Debian has been working with the Conservancy to delegate authority to take action on copyright claims.
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/aug/17/debian/
Conservancy can now accept assignment agreements or enforcement agreements for any Debian contributors who choose to join the Aggregation Project. Currently, Debian developers interested in this program can contact debian-services@sfconservancy.org. The DPL and Conservancy are working together to create a self-service system for filing the paperwork.