@bat didn't seem rude at all, assumed this was fully public (why not?). We *appreciate* the encouragement from the sideline. Keep it up, thanks
@bat Imagine how uncomfortable it is for those of us putting in major time and personal sacrifice. FWIW, the Snowdrift.coop team is still working (all volunteer in available time). Weekly stand-up meetings happen, and we have a sense of progress on our shoveling even though the path isn't clear yet. Even short of picking up a shovel, anyone coming by to say "keep it up!" is useful encouragement.
Snowdrift.coop work lately has been busy but all behind-the-scenes, little to show yet publicly. Update from this week: successful transfer of all our servers to OSUOSL https://osuosl.org after 18 months of on/off planning. Closing our AWS account. This enables the Snowdrift team to not worry about sysadmin issues and focus solely on getting launched!
@joachim_kreativ FYI we have a pretty-complete run-down of all the platforms at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
Comradery is a *worker* co-op, so the decisions are made by the creative workers who get their projects funded. By contrast, Snowdrift.coop aims to function as a "consumer" co-op, i.e. the patrons are the members.
As far as we know, Open Collective is not only non-co-op but is VC-funded, but they do seem otherwise better in many ways than most options. Their code is free/libre/open.
Camradery: standard membership-donations (no mutual assurance), paywall-service (exclude non-members from "premium" publications), **worker** co-op run by the project owners (who can't be non-co-op entities)
Snowdrift.coop: crowdmatching, only for FLO (free/libre/open) projects, **patron**-run co-op (not worker-run)
Updated our full market overview page: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
@joachim_kreativ So, to be clear: non-profits (co-op or not) only pay employees and don't give profit to investors. Liberapay is not a co-op but *is* non-profit. Patreon and Open Collective are not co-ops and are for-profits with VC investors who are expecting their returns / exit some day.
Snowdrift.coop is still not fully launched but indeed, we aim to be a full non-profit co-op.
If you want run-down of all the platforms out there, we have it: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding
@joachim_kreativ We are still working to finalize our Bylaws so that everything is defined. However, the vision is that patrons of the Snowdrift project https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift will be eligible to be co-op members. As a non-profit, there's no stock or share to own, no financial returns. Members will get to elect the Board and vote on member-votes.
Snowdrift.coop will have a few representatives (a couple of whom are giving talks on tangential subjects) at #LibrePlanet2020
May also have a chance for some meetup, let us know if you'll be there and want to connect!
More details on our event posting at our forum: https://community.snowdrift.coop/t/seagl-seattle-wa-november-15-16-2019/1372
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
crowdmatching for public goods
A cooperative funding platform for free/libre/open works
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!