@kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek @cwebber

This is something I have to reflect upon.

I'm under the impression that commercial exploitation destroys anything good that comes from hacking.

Linux included.

At times, I'd like a license stricter then AGPL for my code, just to protect it from "the market".

And I refuse to accept that being commercial is the only way to be useful to people. That's the ethics of Capitalism, and I don't like it.

@Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I'm skeptical of and concerned about commercial exploitation too. Problem is, "noncommercial" doesn't fix the things you'll expect it to, and will prevent things you want.

Here's a question: if Linux were noncommercial, should a community run nonprofit be legally allowed to run it in a commercially run hosting service / datacenter? Even if the hosting service profits from it? Can the cooperative collect dues?

@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek

Have you seen the peer production license? wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Pr

I think its a bit better than a blanket NC license. What I really want is a license requiring income from a commercial entity be used to improve the software. Either by spending time working on it, or paying for others time.

@alienghic @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I think the Peer Production License is a license with good intents and good people that is unfortunately doomed like every other NC approach

@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek

So far the hybrid GPL/commerical license seems to be the most likely to generate funding for developers while still being "Free software"

@alienghic @cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker and this (as a licensing scheme) is 100% fine, because anyone has a clear choice -- either you go with GPL, or you pay.

Notice there is nothing about "noncommercial" in the GPL.

That's my point, NC is not necessary to achieve what people think it's needed for. And it's counter-productive and problematic in general.

Follow

@rysiek @cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker

I thought Stallman explicitly wanted commercial activity to be allowed. Though he usually used the example of CD distributors.

@alienghic @cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker yeah, but I don't think it was for the commercial activity per se, it was more of a "why block good uses of the software if they happen to be somehow related to a money flow"

@rysiek @alienghic @cwebber @kaniini @starbreaker

I've always read it this way too.

But recently I started to think that Stallman, as smart as he is, is still grown in a capitalist culture and subconsciously absorbed many of this culture's assumptions/requirements.

My recent answer to the "why block good uses related to money" is: because they have proved to break the good qualities of the software itself, in the long run.

@Shamar @starbreaker @cwebber @alienghic @rysiek

please for the love of all things holy untag me from this thread, i did the whole FSF vs Creative Commons non-commercial debate a decade and a half ago.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Octodon

Octodon is a nice general purpose instance. more