• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If you look at property rights, the contrast is even stronger. The employer owns 100% of the property rights to the produced outputs and owes 100% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs. Meanwhile, workers qua employee receive 0% of both. This is despite their joint de facto responsibility for producing those results violating the basic principle of justice.

    We need to move towards a copyfarleft model that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft

      Kind of in the vein of what Redis attempted to with its relicense to SSPL

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I have a huge soft spot for SSPL. I believe the FSF is too ideological and the OSI has conflicts of interest and that’s mainly why it wasn’t accepted. It’s unfortunate, because a new, stronger AGPL that closes more loop holes would’ve been amazing.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Far left as in explicit restrictions on capitalist firms using the software without paying for it while still allowing full software freedom for worker coops, which don’t violate workers’ rights.

        Copyfarleft should set up a whole family of licenses of varying strengths and its own alternative ideology from the FSF. The first principle is an almost complete rejection of permissive open source licenses as enabling capitalist free riding @programming