• 3 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle




  • There is a clause about redistribution (1), and it expressly specifies that it applies to “aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources”, not single, standalone works.

    That is a weird way of wording it. In practice I doubt there are any OSI-approved licenses that prohibit standalone commercial distribution. If there were, you could trivially comply by just including a “hello world” program to make it an aggregate distribution.







  • The goal of the copyleft movement (which overlaps heavily with the free software movement) is to carve out an intellectual commons that can’t be re-enclosed. This commons is important for a number of reasons, including that it tends to be better for end-users of software in the sense that anti-features can’t really gain a foothold. It does not automatically solve UX issues, nor does it stop people from using the knowledge of the commons to do bad things.

    Much of the strength of the intellectual commons is that it builds on itself, instead of having to re-invent the same things in a dozen or more different proprietary endeavors. If we were to start a “peace software” movement, it would be incompatible with the commons, due to the restrictions it imposes. Peace software can’t build on copyleft software, and none of the commons can build on peace software. These sorts of things were considered, and compatibility was deemed more important than pushing more specific values. This isn’t a matter of the FSF or OSI standing in the way, it’s just that “peace software” would have to go it alone.

    Due to this dynamic, those that want to build “anticapitalist software” would be better served by using the GNU AGPL, rather than a license that restricts commercial use. The AGPL fixes the loophole that the GPL leaves open for network services, and should allow us to carve out a new noncommercial online ecosystem. It should even be used for non-network code, as that code may be repurposed or built upon by network services. I’m glad to see lemmy, kbin, and mastodon using it.



  • Well, I’ve never heard of a well-informed anarchist either, so there you go.

    They just don’t understand any of the basics of organisation.

    It sounds like you haven’t had much interaction with anarchists beyond maybe high-school, and haven’t read anything that we’ve written.

    Also, police organizations complain that anarchist activist groups are too hard to infiltrate because there’s too much reading to do:

    Infiltration is made more difficult by the communal nature of the lifestyle (under constant observation and scrutiny) and the extensive knowledge held by many anarchists, which require a considerable amount of study and time to acquire.

    Literally “I can’t blend in with these fucking nerds because they read too much”.

    They just base their whole ideology on the delusion that everybody’s just gonna play nice, nobody will want to do anything for their advantage and, cucially, that crime just doesn’t exist.

    Our philosophy is centered around dealing with the organized crime of the state and the exploitation of the capitalists. If you generally can’t trust people to play nice, putting a few of them in positions of power tends to make the problem worse, not better.

    I wanna see how any anarchist society deals with a murder.

    Which aspect of it? Basic security is pretty simple, and there’s a number of ways to provision it. Forensics would be handled by contracting professional specialists. Trials would be handled by a polycentric legal system (as opposed to the monocentric one that we currently have. Punishment would generally be in the form of either restitution paid by the perpetrator to the victim (or next of kin), or exile.

    But that’s already much too high for anarchists, who barely understand basic human incentives.

    C’mon now, this is just confidentlyincorrect material.






  • The people who generally want to destroy a system and rebuild anew are usually clueless or have an ulterior motive.

    It’s worth noting that “destroy and rebuild anew” is a point of contention among anarchists. Some of us favor a revolutionary approach, but some (myself included) favor an “evolutionary” approach instead. Same end goal, just achieved through steady incremental change, rather than a big upheaval.

    In practice though, success likely wouldn’t fall cleanly into either category. There’d be incremental change punctuated by occasional (smaller) upheavals. But I guess all social change happens like that, really.


  • The difference is than in an ideal anarchist polity, the minority can secede, even down to the individual. “Majority rule” only happens to the extent that the minority doesn’t find secession to be a worthwhile option. Whereas under democracy, the land and resources of the minority, and even the people themselves are considered to rightfully belong to the state. Any serious attempt at secession is met with violence.

    Actually-existing “anarchistic” societies may not completely live up to this ideal, but it is what we strive for. Anarchists consider freedom of association and freedom of disassociation to be paramount.