FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open-Source Software)

70 readers

3 users here now

This is a community for everything FLOSS

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SovietReporter@lemmygrad.ml

Elara@lemmygrad.ml

vaquera_medianoche@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

Peer Production License - P2P Foundation (wiki.p2pfoundation.net)

submitted 3 days ago by haui@lemmygrad.ml to c/foss@lemmygrad.ml

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I really enjoy seeing that people are indeed working on anticpaitalist licensing. I can already see the argument that it will not be enough or even a hindrance. I personally think it is a great step in the right direction but only the first.

Feel free to disagree, criticize and make suggestions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically GPL + excludes businesses? If so, then I don't think this would be too good of an idea for engineering projects especially robotic ones since such libre/open-source projects from businesses can actually be helpful for technological advancement in general. However, for more personal/entertaining projects, which even if adopted and improved by the businesses as libre/open-source software doesn't actually do anything other than make the business profit (such as games) then this would be a great license for that scenario.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see your point. I think the discussion about this topic needs to go far deeper than this.

The gpl itself precludes you to use for example my foss code in your e.g. ms windows OS. Lets say i make a new calculator that is compatible with windows.

Under MIT, they can iirc just integrate my code in windows and be done with it.

Under GPL, windows would need to become open source.

But ubuntu for exmaple could include my code in their OS without paying me.

Under the ppl, they couldnt. In all cases where they "cant" they would need to seek me out and talk to me about money.

A singleton coder who wants to change my software and sell it themselves would be allowed to do so, same goes for cooperatives.

(Sidenotr: I'm not sure about their obligations towards me though. That could be an issue because you make money, you share, period.)

Insofar, in my analysis so far, the ppl is just a further escalation of the gpl towards the goal of owning the means of production.

[–] WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

I get that. Sounds like a good idea. However, what about co-operative non-profit use? Paying for non-profit use seems counter-intuitive and restrictive. Also, do the people using the code have to put their software as ppl?

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

As i said, collectives and singletons can use it for free. Non profit is of course included.

Yes, of course if they want to use your software they need to ship the software containing it under the same license, same as gpl. Otherwise google could make a nonprofit they control (ie mozilla) and relicense your sw to make it available for profit extraction.

[–] WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

Thanks for the clarification. It does sound like a good license