• haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • rglullis@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.