Comment on

• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  This is an unpopular opinion, but using licenses to actively prevent commercial exploitation of voluntary communal labor is not a bad thing. I would even argue that allowing commercial exploitation of free, communally-maintained software is downright unethical. I don’t tolerate this pejorative “it’s not open source unless the rich and powerful can exploit it” bullshit.

  source

  • moonshadow@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This is not a remotely unpopular opinion, sharing is awesome and corpos can suck it

    source
  • LiveLM@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Thank you for writing down my own thoughts down. I see this so often and it always irks me.
    "oh but you’re limiting your reach with this license because the companies won’t want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.

    source
  • barryamelton@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If you dont want corpos to exploit it, you go with GPL. Then they are forced to share back.

    source

    • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I like AGPL in theory, but in practice it never works like that. They are protected by a smoke screen — you don’t know if they are using something, how they are using it, or what they’ve built on it — and even if something did leak about their usage they are protected by money — the vast majority of FOSS projects won’t have the resources to pursue any kind of legal enforcement or reasonable remedy. In practice, they will use and build on A/GPL software while contributing nothing back in blatant violation of the spirit and intent of the license, because who is going to find out or enforce it?

      source
• northernlights@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.

  source

  • xvapx@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.

    source

    • kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.

      source
    • northernlights@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      They do call it “open source” in the docs though.

      source
  • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That’s called “source available”. FUTO basically did the same thing with their stuff after the community rightfully got angry over their use of “open source” in their docs.

    source