FYI, though #copyleft is certainly completely #FLO (free/libre/open) and has absolutely no commercial restrictions, the [arguably-misguided] efforts to discriminate against commercial use or commercial use by non-co-ops or similar has, in *some* circles, been referred to as #copyfarleft
That is indeed a misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Copyleft ONLY says that if you redistribute software, it must retain the copyleft license. It has absolutely no limitations on the use of the software and treats 100% of people/entities identically.
The stuff that article advocated for (discriminatory and non-commercial licensing), THAT stuff is a tactic that entrenches proprietorship and undermines software freedom. That's not "copyleft".
That analysis is using mostly *wrong* stats to study what does and doesn't need/get funding.
There's NO correlation between the potential value of some FLO software and the cost of development. We do *not* need to fund trivial-to-develop software even if it gets used by everyone on the planet. We *do* need to fund software that requires funding *and* provides real value.
Licensing is a practical tactical matter. Copyleft is *often* the best tactic for the goals of software freedom, but not always. Non-free discriminatory licenses, by contrast, while well intentioned are generally a bad, even counterproductive strategy. Copyright licensing is the wrong tool for the goals. RMS does put it well: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
Thanks to partnership with @OSUOSLhttps://osuosl.org we are finally getting our core servers and systems more solid and reliable!
Dealing with those things has been a major distraction and obstacle (costing us months to years even). We're now going to have that stuff in place as a stronger foundation for the rest of our development and organizing!
(Longer blog post coming once the process is farther along)
@strypey We reluctantly moved to GitLab.com. We considered the other options (we researched them! https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/flo-repos#flo-source-hosting ) and maybe we will ever move, but fighting battles on principle has cost us a lot up to now. We needed to focus on our core mission. Planning longer blog post about this and other updates soon.
Out of context, the sentences you quoted could give wrong impression, and we adjusted them but there may be others.
OSS has no concern about end-users retaining freedoms in how they use, study, modify, and share technology. OSS is an upstream developer-centric philosophy.
FS is about the freedoms reaching all the way downstream, and that's our priority
> "This may indicate merely an increased interest in #FLOSS among developers who would not likely reach their goals under any circumstances"
a confusing sentence indeed. Updated to:
"Of course, there will always be lots of trials and hacks that don't continue long-term, and that's fine — it just indicates healthy creativity."
incidentally, you must've read decent amount of our wiki to see that old floss-funding-history article…
Thanks for the pointed and constructive feedback!
We may go ahead and update those texts…
But clarification: we're don't *blame* free-software devs. We *celebrate* freedom to hack, fork, etc. — we're just saying it's naive to think that those things will *necessarily* deliver adequate freedoms and ethical software to all. Often cooperation, resources, and explicit ethical *intentions* make the difference in *addition* to hacking.
In your posts throughout: too much mind-reading. You put words in others' mouths and mistakenly assume intentions and values.
You're imagining disagreements that don't exist.
Surely you don't oppose coordination and cooperation, right?
We don't propose removing any freedoms for forking, redundancy, wheel-reinvention… they *can* be essential.
And using money within our capitalist system isn't endorsing capitalism.
Fragmentation of *effort*, wheel-reinvention, etc.
If we have 10 projects that are all half-done and the same amount of resources (hours of work) could have made 1 or 2 really robust and complete projects, that's what fragmentation is.
A better metaphor: Reducing free-software fragmentation is like having a few deep friendships instead of just dozens of friendly acquaintances.
> "hope to address the problem of too many similar projects" in direct contrast with this freedom.
Reduced fragmentation in practice ≠ reduced freedom
Forking is an *essential* freedom, but not an end goal in itself. It's a necessary check on the power of any single dominant project and a tool for creativity. But fragmentation isn't itself desirable.
Our crowdmatching system at Snowdrift.coop spreads the burden as wide as possible by design.
We recognize the problem with uneven influence. We want funding that isn't tied to a few wealth philanthropists (philanthropy is, by nature, an exercise of power).
New blog post (finally, a year late) announcing our new forum: https://blog.snowdrift.coop/new-forum
> That theory, that funded projects will pass on funds or maintenance work to the projects they depend on, doesn't seem to be borne out in practice
The only really adequately funded downstream projects today are proprietary, for-profit, exploitive! Of course they do a poor job funding their upstream stuff… but when it really counts they actually DO anyway, see the Linux kernel.
But funding real ethical FLO downstream projects *will* be different reality.
@Blort Final point here: The model is the everyone-matching-each-other. The budget limit isn't crowdmatching, it's just a cap for assurance.
If you're prepared today to donate $15 to a project, crowdmatching lets you *withhold* your donation and use it to incentivize many more people to join you to where it actually makes a difference.
@Blort In other words: if we can get an order of magnitude or two more people donating to public goods at their *actual* budget limits… THEN we can democratically decide which of various methods to use to spread the burden as fairly as possible.
The only reason a limit exists now, far before it could be hit is for the portion of people who freak out about the idea of a limitless matching pledge and need reassurance of a hard limit they control.
crowdmatching for public goods
A cooperative funding platform for free/libre/open works
social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.
Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here