Socialism

2846 readers

85 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.

Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

OneRedFox@beehaw.org

Rethinking free and open source and its role in the movement against capitalism - "Copyfarleft and Copyjustright" (mastodon.social)

submitted 4 months ago by jlou@mastodon.social to c/socialism@beehaw.org

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Rethinking free and open source and its role in the movement against capitalism - "Copyfarleft and Copyjustright"

https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/copyfarleft-and-copyjustright

This is an interesting paper and something like this should be explored. Although, I would shift the anti-capitalist analysis to the labor theory of property and shift some of the critique of property to employment contracts.

@socialism

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is there a clear business model? It seems like the goal is to make it free for collectives and non-profit use, and then collect fees from for-profit companies. The CC-NC-SA has an obvious business case because not everyone has the capability to set up and use the software, but it's popularity can create a secondary market for people to pay for other people to host it for them -> leading to revenue. Basically the Freeware model with the addition of the source being open. With art it creates a carve-out for copyright that allows free sharing, but once the art is used in a commercial context, the artist should get a cut of the revenue.

But if there's a secondary market of collectives providing that service without the need to pay, wouldn't they out-compete a privately owned service that pays for the software? Why would a privately owned service fund a software company that doesn't want them to exist? Likewise, why would a corporation use an artist's work that was shared under this license?

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago

Non-profits with workers must also have labor control.

The article's version doesn't account for some use cases.

Non-market systems can operate within the commons and we only need to charge at points where value leaves.

Extensions I've considered:

- Allow proprietary works as long as the commons is appropriately compensated

- Restrict use for creating proprietary works.

- Require collectivizing property also

Distribute licensing funds to projects using quadratic funding

@socialism