If you want the government to be the one financing FOSS developement, who will be in charging of managing the purse if not the bureaucrats?
Dual license so that corpos pay for it
Strongly disagree. If you start putting restrictions around who should have the right to Free Software, it is no longer free. It is because of shitty “source available” mentality that I, as an small indie shop, can not offer hosting for interesting solutions for other companies. If Lemmy or Mastodon were not AGPL, I would never had touched it.
there is a big difference between them holding onto the purse and them being able to put walls of paper in front of anyone trying to access it. The more transparent and voted over publicly that is, the more it should actually function.
Strongly disagree
Help me here. My understanding is that you can dual license something, for example agpl (not ever to be taken closed source) and a pay for it if you want to build something proprietary with it, no? Let me know what real world example would spell doom here.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were calling for licenses that force companies to pay. Dual licensing is indeed an option if a company wants to pay to use free software in a closed product.
Re: bureaucracy. If you have any thoughts on how to get a public-funded system that can allocate resources (a) efficiently (b) at a large scale and ( c ) without falling to politicking and power games, I’m all ears. Myself, I still believe that market-based approaches are better, and that we should leave the government only to (local-level) regulations.
If you want the government to be the one financing FOSS developement, who will be in charging of managing the purse if not the bureaucrats?
Strongly disagree. If you start putting restrictions around who should have the right to Free Software, it is no longer free. It is because of shitty “source available” mentality that I, as an small indie shop, can not offer hosting for interesting solutions for other companies. If Lemmy or Mastodon were not AGPL, I would never had touched it.
there is a big difference between them holding onto the purse and them being able to put walls of paper in front of anyone trying to access it. The more transparent and voted over publicly that is, the more it should actually function.
Help me here. My understanding is that you can dual license something, for example agpl (not ever to be taken closed source) and a pay for it if you want to build something proprietary with it, no? Let me know what real world example would spell doom here.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were calling for licenses that force companies to pay. Dual licensing is indeed an option if a company wants to pay to use free software in a closed product.
Re: bureaucracy. If you have any thoughts on how to get a public-funded system that can allocate resources (a) efficiently (b) at a large scale and ( c ) without falling to politicking and power games, I’m all ears. Myself, I still believe that market-based approaches are better, and that we should leave the government only to (local-level) regulations.