The licensing thread #50
Labels
No Label
abra
abra-gandi
awaiting-feedback
backups
bug
build
ci/cd
community organising
contributing
coopcloud.tech
democracy
design
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
finance
funding
good first issue
help wanted
installer
kadabra
performance
proposal
question
recipes.coopcloud.tech
security
test
wontfix
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: coop-cloud/organising#50
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Had a second thought that yeah, if people want to make profit off of this then I'd like to see that it is worker owned or democractically run. That calls for copyfarleft as far as I know.
Things like Coopyleft (see https://coopcycle.org/en/software/ "A new license : the Coopyleft. It ensures that the companies using the CoopCycle's software comply with the following rules: Using a cooperative model in which workers are employees; Fitting with the definition of social economy actors as defined by the European Union) might fit here.
Thoughts? How would this work in practice?
💯
Yeah I'm fine with anything as long as it's banned by Google's lawyers 😉
Haven't checked out what differences there are between Coopyleft and e.g. Peer Production licence, happy to follow your lead on it.
I think the same way any libre software licence works (or doesn't): we rely on medium-to-large corporates being cautious enough not to dice with it, and cross our fingers that any small, profit-seeking cowboys add enough value through testing or outreach or maybe even dev help to offset the commercial licence that they should be buying but aren't.
Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on offering / advertising a commercial option for those folks? Might be a lot harder for someone to justify ignoring the licence if they could totally avoid that drama for £x/month. If we wanted to do this we'd probably wanna get a CLA in place ASAP (maybe ideally including some way to compensate non-Autonomic contributors?) to avoid the debacle that Cloudron had when relicensing.
Good question 🤔
I think I was just ignoring this hoping that we can make back some cash on doing managed instances but yeah, you're right, some $orgs might just want to skip the licensing issues.
Either way, they'd have to deal with the underlying app licensing or? I guess most projects with this in mind use MIT and that is totally abusable.
I guess I'm a bit wary of setting up a CLA for a maybe-gonna-happen situation.
Some other links:
I'd love to lock out capitalists by default (I know in practice that it gets messy who can use and who cannot but I'd still like to discuss the possibility of doing this) from gratis usage and have them have to ask for a separate license which they have to explicity pay so as to support the ecosystem ("reciprocity"). This idea is apparently a variation on a license I found very influential: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
I've reached out to folks who did https://varia.zone/not-for-any/ in Varia.
Maybe I can work the network to find someone who wants to engage in this question.
Idea: could reach out to people who have authored copyfarleft licenses/treatises
https://anticapitalist.software/
https://cooperativetechnology.codeberg.page
https://lynnesbian.space/csl/
We discussed trying to open up an invite to some folks on this thread to try have a discussion. My idea was to understand more deeply the options for copyfarleft and dealing with how licenses can related to preserving digital commons from exploitation.
We're just gonna GPL the world and move on. Not much energy for another approach now.
979f417a6319e422047dhttps://docs.coopcloud.tech/intro/faq/#what-licensing-model-do-you-use