Post #1628930

2026-04-23 22:37 UTC

maybe we need to give up on open source the concept is great, but it's too easily exploited. I want source code access, like in an archive, a library: members can look — but don't touch. you can borrow, but if you steal your membership will be revoked. and the creation now happens in secret, we meet underground to conspire a design; we meet in the woods under the moonlight for a wild, naked dance of an arcane ritual; we meet in abandoned warehouses in masks and sway to the music of the (r)evolution. no robots, no bosses allowed. it's gonna be small, scrappy and buggy, but it will be ours.

Replies (12)

@meena@cathode.church 2026-04-24 13:57

my works are now CC-NA-NC-SA Collective Commons — Non-attribution — Non-Commercial — Share Alike

Open ##1717614
@leah@blahaj.social 2026-04-23 22:50

@meena the proof assistant Mizar used to work like that, you had to submit a proof to the math library to get access to the source code.

Open ##1717617
@jrf_nl@phpc.social 2026-04-24 13:49

@meena I'm in.

Open ##1717619
@ireneista@adhd.irenes.space 2026-04-24 13:52

@meena we're unsure about making our stuff not-open but we're definitely up for moonlit coding dances in the woods

Open ##1717624
@cutesobri@cathode.church 2026-04-24 14:27

@meena reminds me of some pastagang ideas of rejecting typical open source prosses

Open ##1717625
@bobmagicii@phpc.social 2026-04-24 19:47

@meena i dont accept pull requests nor even respond to issue tickets. basically what you are suggesting. 🤣

Open ##1717626
@rtyler@buoyantdata.social 2026-04-24 20:21

@meena@cathode.church i have been noodling similar thoughts https://brokenco.de/2026/04/01/private-open-source.html

Open ##1717630
@srtcd424@mas.to 2026-04-28 09:10

@meena I've been thinking we basically need a "private second internet" maybe utilizing some sort of web-of-trust auth; this would seem like the obvious counterpoint. @radicle seems promising ..

Open ##1799066
@vickyrampin@digipres.club 2026-05-12 20:07

@meena@cathode.church open source is a type of license that already defines how people can borrow code without stealing it the fact the entire (US) legal system around copyright is collapsing isn't unique to open source, nor does it mean open source is a concept we need to get rid of the idea of gatekeeping as you're describing is precisely why the free software movement was born -- it doesn't end up being arcane fun when everything is behind closed doors

Open ##2596297
@tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org 2026-05-13 04:54

@meena@cathode.church Thank you. What we def need too is discussion on ways to proceed. Open source benefits corporate free use of volunteer labor.

Open ##2596300
@ChuckMcManis@chaos.social 2026-05-14 22:05

@meena@cathode.church Yes in the FSF sense we should stop doing that. Instead use legally enforceable licenses that allow the license holder to sue people who use the source without license, to grant licenses to people who will use it in an approved way and give back their changes, and code available for people to *read* if they want to understand and trust it. Redistribute license fees to contributors/maintainers.

Open ##2596301
@nanoparsec@yakshed.social 2026-05-21 08:59

@meena@cathode.church You got me with meeting under the moonlight. 💜

Open ##2790006