Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 10-May-2026 02:08:37 JST Rich Felker

   @hipsterelectron Hot take: corporations should never be making this kind of FOSS. Their only relationships to FOSS should only be (1) pooling funds for existing independent developers of infrastructure they depend on, ideally forcibly by having it seized as taxes and redistributed, and (2) open sourcing any and all code they ship to users/customers that's part of product logic so we have freedom to use & modify the things we bought and keep using them if the corporation stops supporting them.

   We absolutely do not need corporation-developed compression algorithms, image formats, programming languages, programming frameworks, protocols, etc.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 10-May-2026 02:30:37 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • FoolishOwl

     @foolishowl @hipsterelectron I actually don't want to scare off corporations from using our software as dependencies. Them doing that gives us power/leverage.

     (Unlike ingesting it in LLMs and pretending they can get back something just as good without depending on us.)

     What I want is for them to stop polluting our space with corporate-controlled nominal-FOSS that displaces real FOSS and gives them leverage/power and dissolves ours.

   • Embed this notice
     FoolishOwl (foolishowl@social.coop)'s status on Sunday, 10-May-2026 02:30:39 JST FoolishOwl

     in reply to

     @dalias @hipsterelectron Capitalism began with the Enclosure Movement, and it's still its favorite move.

     It feels a bit late to re-litigate the old arguments about permissive versus restrictive licenses, given that a major goal of "generative AI" seems to be to corporate force majeure against any remaining legal resistance.

     But I still feel like licenses *should* have been written to scare off corporations.