remember when 4 million people yelled at me on here a couple months ago because i said that the core stipulations of open source require programmers to allow their labor to be exploited and now purism is just rebranding tusky and charging for it

stallman voice: the fifth freedom is the freedom to have your unpaid labor exploited for profit

@dankwraith i have a crappy pet theory that a significant part of the web 2.0 boom was startups profiting off open source work once certain keystone projects reached maturity

@scrollbars @dankwraith That's not a weird conspiracy theory. Google. Apple. All that shit is built on Linux & BSD, which is free software. They're all app develppers in the POSIX system. If they had to design their own systems from scratch it might end up like... well like Windows...

Silicon Valley trillionares are built on FOSS.

@scrollbars @dankwraith Also, developing, ahem, THE INTERNET, didn't happen overnight. The TCP/IP stack didn't fall out of a tree. It's FOSS.

@gozer @dankwraith IMO the last piece to drop was ruby on rails. Once that was in place it became very very easy for a 1-2 person team to launch a “startup” with no software licensing costs. Rails wasn’t the first free framework by any means, but it really streamlined development and lowered the skill/knowledge barrier.

@scrollbars @dankwraith Yeah. php and mysql was already pretty easy, Ruby on Rails is Really Fucking Easy. I'm super glad it exists, but we can stop pretending that web software developers are supergeniuses with occult knowledge gleaned from their journey to the underworld now.

@scrollbars @dankwraith this is not just a pet theory, it's fact. Most of the modern web is built on LAMP.

@dankwraith is there a license you'd recommend? i typically use (A)GPLv3

@lynnesbian i honestly dont know at this point, i guess it depends on what you think the project is for. AGPL is nice because it prevents private entities from just wrapping around your code and not releasing it publicly but nobody would use an AGPL project in a game for that reason

@dankwraith @lynnesbian
AGPLv3 isn't legally binding is it? What's to keep them from just ignoring it outright?

@clerical @lynnesbian i've never heard this before. i'm pretty sure any software license is legally binding

You are right on some level, though. The only thing "stopping" some people is the threat of a lawsuit if they get caught. The licenses are legally binding but if you hide it well enough there's a chance you can get away with it
@dankwraith @lynnesbian

@lynnesbian @dankwraith
I feel like there's enough people with this problem that someone will just make a copyfarleft software license. Something like like the P2P license mixed with the GPL would work.

AGPLv3 is also my go-to. I make Free Software to benefit society. I don't mind if someone uses it professionally or makes money from it as long as they are also contributing and not just trying to suck profit from my work parasitically.

@dankwraith this, coming from the FSF, is especially funny, given that the Open Source movement was a counter movement to the Free Software movement

@dankwraith any programmer can also rebrand tusky and charge for it. they just generally don't because running a business is hard and risky. purism's thing might well fail. note that I myself am an open-source programmer who has not tried to build a business around my open-source code b/c it seems hard and not fun.
Sign in to participate in the conversation is one server in the network