Fedi Meta 

Want to know why we are making an alternative to mastodon ?

Here is what we have in mind parast.at

#FediAdmin #MastoDev

re: Fedi Meta 

@parastat As someone who has had to deal with copyright issues on software far too many times, I beg you to reconsider your choice of license. The only way to enforce it is to invoke state violence anyway and it ignores models of worker-owned cooperatives that divest profits into the community.

I run a Pleroma instance for our hackerspace @57n and was wondering if this might be something to consider switching to when it matures (not that Pleroma has been a problem so far) but after reading that license I nope'd right out of there.

re: Fedi Meta 

@irl @57n would you be able to clarify why you think CNPL ignores worker-owned rights in a few words (or more if you have the spoons)?

We are actually aiming for worker-owned cooperative to play a part in the ecosystem for and around parastat

re: Fedi Meta 

@parastat Sure, 4)e)ii) talks about restrictions on the operation of the worker-owned enterprise that profits must be distributed among the worker-owners.

I know of at least one worker co-op that pays salaries to staff, and if they do make a profit beyond what they need to put aside for emergencies or re-invest in their enterprise, they divest it to the local community.

A worker co-op that divests profit to the worker-owners is essentially a capitalist enterprise, and does not exist for the benefit of the community. Your license terms would forbid community interest enterprises from using your software.

See chapter 22 of https://blackcat.coop/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Black-Cat-Handbook-V4.2.pdf

More generally, your license is a huge wall of text. I am not a lawyer.

When I look at your license, I see the threat of state violence being used against me in ways that I don't understand, because I'm not a lawyer. That alone makes me want to avoid your software. I'd be playing your game, but I don't understand the rules.

re: Fedi Meta 

@irl thank you for going into more details.

I understand the point you make about community interest enterprises & the wall of text.

One thing that license are for generally is to enforce the threat of state violence. That's the whole idea behind copyright and licenses no?

Our goal with this license is to avoid capital to profit of our libre software, so far CNPL is the best we found.
We are not lawyer either.

re: Fedi Meta 

@parastat Right, it just seemed ironic being a "non-violent" license.

Personally I'm not a fan of copyright. I generally release my open source projects as CC0, or 2-clause BSD license. I cannot see any situation in which I would enforce those licenses.

A community interest anarcho-syndicalist co-operative is still a business that has the potential to make surplus, the difference is what they do with the surplus. As people experiment with different models to find out which ones are good for humanity and which are not so good, fixing one particular model in your license seems short sighted.

The best protection you have for your code is to write your code to function the way you want it to, and not in ways that would be useful to surveillance capitalism and/or online advertising and/or trolls. Create an environment that is hostile to the ideas that you don't want, and that nurtures the ideas you do want.

re: Fedi Meta 

@irl @parastat I will also weigh in that I think the license choice is a really bad one (even if good goals). I wouldn't touch any code that uses the CNPL with a ten foot pole and I advise that nobody else does so either. he terms in that license could very easily be turned against good parties.

Noncommercial licenses have a composition problem anyway: dustycloud.org/blog/noncommerc

Please also don't call it "open source" if you use the CNPL: it doesn't meet the open source definition.

re: Fedi Meta 


May I repeat my question about what you mean by "compose"?
As English is not my maternal language I don't understand clearly what you mean and I wasn't able to extract its meaning from your text either.


re: Fedi Meta 

@LienRag @cwebber

what he means is that if you have several pieces of software and some of them are released under the GPL or MIT, then combining those project with yours would be difficult because your license would make some of the conditions of the GPL and MIT unapplicable, de facto

re: Fedi Meta 

@LienRag @cwebber

so distributions would probably choose not to use your project and if they do, then users would face legal incertainty

re: Fedi Meta 

@LienRag @cwebber

that' s what he means with "not composable"

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!