@noisytoot @alexia I really do appreciate your perspective on this, but I think the FSF's position on this comes from a rather privileged place that doesn't acknowledge the number of OSS devs struggling to make a living under capitalism. I think nonfree licenses, especially those that discourage commercial exploitation of OSS software without compensating the developers, are fine, and even necessary until we implement UBI or something similar to guarantee that open source developers can put food on the table for their OSS work, not by holding down another job at the same time.
I agree with the ideals of the FSF, but I don't think achieving them under the current state of capitalism is realistic. That's not to say I think they can't be achieved, but I think acting as if they are achievable now will not produce productive discussion.
I'll put in a PR to make some of the changes you suggested, and ask a lawyer I know to review the OQL.
In reply to
TheMagicalC
@cwg1231@defcon.social
Amateur radio and physical security enjoyer, computer hater and programmer. Born onto the front lines of the fight for accessibility in education. Musician, maker, and artist. Tea and coffee lover, nuclear professional. Trans rights are human rights. Over 18.
defcon.social
TheMagicalC
@cwg1231@defcon.social
Amateur radio and physical security enjoyer, computer hater and programmer. Born onto the front lines of the fight for accessibility in education. Musician, maker, and artist. Tea and coffee lover, nuclear professional. Trans rights are human rights. Over 18.
defcon.social
@cwg1231@defcon.social
·
Dec 09, 2025
1
0
0
Loading comments...