Cooperative ownership as the next step of free open source software
Cooperative ownership as the next step of free open source software
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!
You're viewing a single thread.
The mass won’t even consider being part of a paid membership of a cooperative that’s only purpose is a web browser. That would be the way to drive them even more into Chrome or Safari.
i don't think you need to be a paid member to use the finished product. membership is for having a say in what will be changed.
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.
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.
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?
2, and by extension 3 and 4
Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window.
How?
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
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.
yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this
Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter.