Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈 (juliank@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2024 01:52:31 JST Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈

   in reply to

   • vv221

   @vv221 Well the key difference is that it's a license whereas I'm saying let's limit who we directly grant access to the software while anyone we do grant access to still gets it under the GPL (same works for anything).

   Whether that's putting all your GPL repos behind a paywall with a free "I am an individual" option, or modifying the license grant.

   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     vv221 (vv221@fediverse.dotslashplay.it)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2024 01:52:32 JST vv221

     in reply to
     This sounds similar to what is proposed by The Anti-Capitalist Software License: https://anticapitalist.software/
     
     Sadly it does not seem to be compatible with the FSF and OSI definitions of Free Software.
     
   • Embed this notice
     Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈 (juliank@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Jul-2024 01:52:33 JST Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈

     We need a variant of the GPL license grant that prevents commercial entities from directly receiving the software from its authors.

     Only individuals and perhaps non-commercial organisations should be able to receive the work from the author under the GPL.

     And corporations must pay a subscription fee, or figure out an individual or non-commercial org to receive their copy from.

     Essentially this preserves all the freedoms but provides the incentives for companies to not complain to the authors.