this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
319 points (99.1% liked)

Programming

17525 readers
341 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft

Kind of in the vein of what Redis attempted to with its relicense to SSPL

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Far left as in explicit restrictions on capitalist firms using the software without paying for it while still allowing full software freedom for worker coops, which don't violate workers' rights.

Copyfarleft should set up a whole family of licenses of varying strengths and its own alternative ideology from the FSF. The first principle is an almost complete rejection of permissive open source licenses as enabling capitalist free riding @programming

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm just picking on a point that's not relevant to your comment's core idea, I'm not saying we shouldn't share software or other goods and services with worker coops:

worker coops, which don’t violate workers’ rights.

Under capitalism worker cooperatives will also violate the rights of its workers even if less than traditional companies, because that's what capitalism demands for their survival on the market.


I think it's kind of challenging to legally define what makes a party "worthy" of making use of the software or digital work. I think you would need to go on a case-by-case basis, but at that point it probably makes more sense to just make software source-available and actively encourage people to reach out to you to get permission to use the software and to modify and redistribute it.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I have a specific theory of rights in mind. This theory of rights proposes worker coops as the only rights respecting way of organizing labor relations based on the inalienability of responsibility. I'm not using rights in a general vague sense to refer to harm.

Worker coops view workers differently than capitalist firms. They see labor as a fixed factor e.g. worker coops cut wages not jobs during economic, downturns.

The theory of rights I have in mind can fit in a license @programming

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I have a huge soft spot for SSPL. I believe the FSF is too ideological and the OSI has conflicts of interest and that's mainly why it wasn't accepted. It's unfortunate, because a new, stronger AGPL that closes more loop holes would've been amazing.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 4 months ago

I wouldn't say FSF is too ideological. They just don't have a political strategy for how they will bring about the changes they desire. To really change things towards a new mode of production, you need a way for people in the new mode of production to earn a living. Also, their ideology is wrong in its lack of emphasis on software workers' rights and the relations of production