▲ 212 ▼ Cooperative ownership as the next step of free open source software (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Twoafros@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world 32 comments fedilink hide all child comments Link to original post: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/111932214690841585 Link to news link shown in the photo: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/mozilla-lays-off-60-people-wants-to-build-ai-into-firefox/ Cooperative ownership for all businesses too!
[+] lurch@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (2 children) This has some serious "only landowners should be allowed to vote" vibes I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] meekah@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I mean, I don't really think that's a fair comparison because people aren't being forced to use this theoretical browser, so it's not like the "landowners" are making decisions that are forced onto everyone else. It's more of a "We are using our money/labor to build a house here and everyone can use it for free, we just get to decide the layout". Free software, in my book, means software, that respects the users privacy and provides them full control over the software, and that anyone can use, regardless of what they plan to use it for, even when they make their own money off of it by using the software to provide a service for example. It does not mean that it's a democratic approach to the decision making process in development. permalink fedilink source parent [–] abessman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software. Which of the four freedoms does it fall short of? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 2, and by extension 3 and 4 Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (2 children) This has some serious "only landowners should be allowed to vote" vibes I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] meekah@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I mean, I don't really think that's a fair comparison because people aren't being forced to use this theoretical browser, so it's not like the "landowners" are making decisions that are forced onto everyone else. It's more of a "We are using our money/labor to build a house here and everyone can use it for free, we just get to decide the layout". Free software, in my book, means software, that respects the users privacy and provides them full control over the software, and that anyone can use, regardless of what they plan to use it for, even when they make their own money off of it by using the software to provide a service for example. It does not mean that it's a democratic approach to the decision making process in development. permalink fedilink source parent [–] abessman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software. Which of the four freedoms does it fall short of? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 2, and by extension 3 and 4 Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] meekah@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I mean, I don't really think that's a fair comparison because people aren't being forced to use this theoretical browser, so it's not like the "landowners" are making decisions that are forced onto everyone else. It's more of a "We are using our money/labor to build a house here and everyone can use it for free, we just get to decide the layout". Free software, in my book, means software, that respects the users privacy and provides them full control over the software, and that anyone can use, regardless of what they plan to use it for, even when they make their own money off of it by using the software to provide a service for example. It does not mean that it's a democratic approach to the decision making process in development. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abessman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software. Which of the four freedoms does it fall short of? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 2, and by extension 3 and 4 Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 2, and by extension 3 and 4 Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute Why? the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it Contributing something because you want it is how free software works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter. permalink fedilink source parent