Talk:Consumerium Software License: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 19:16, 7 November 2003

We should work on this more. GPL is starting to die as a basis for seriuos development. First SCO takes off the gloves and declares GPL unenforceable and unconstitutional, then Redhat abandons the desktop publicly and Suse gets bought by Novell, and Szulik announces that Linux desktop is not ready for prime time and won't be for years, and suggests Windows. All within a few days.

The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems. A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated only by a concern of the developers not the users: remaining free to hack anything into unusability. The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism). At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price. What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not. But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the GPL world seems to be proving.

Basically, the FSF never did a serious styles of capital analysis on where contributions and users were coming from, why they were motivated, etc., and instead just relied on ideology. Then they got competitors, new licenses, etc., and weren't able to deal with it. They had no rational answers for the various objections made to GPL provisions. They ended up fueling spinoffs that lost the viral license provisions that were the most important things.

Consumerium Software License and any Green Documentation License must really have viral license provisions like GFDL or GPL, but they should shun the Debian definition of free which puts green purposes no more important than those of an arms industry lobby group. Under those rules, no moral purchasing power can be gained. So let's talk about this.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-See [[Talk:licenses]] for a hopefully-compatible disclaimer.  There are issues that Wikipedia is running into that we can avoid:
+We should work on this more.  [[GPL]] is starting to die as a basis for seriuos development.  First SCO takes off the gloves and declares GPL unenforceable and unconstitutional, then Redhat abandons the desktop publicly and Suse gets bought by Novell, and Szulik announces that Linux desktop is not ready for prime time and won't be for years, and suggests Windows.  All within a few days.
-. GFDL requires listing the five most important authors - Wikipedia doesn't do this, so it violates the GFDL.
+The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems.  A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated ''only'' by a concern of the ''developers'' not the users:  remaining free to hack anything into unusability.  The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism).  At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price.   What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not.  But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the [[GPL]] world seems to be proving.
-. GFDL requires open access to source text format with no limitations - Wikipedia uses hard-bans that prevent some people from retrieving source text (there's an option or prior version that lets banned users retrieve source but not re-submit it, which policy does not violate the GFDL except in spirit).
+Basically, the FSF never did a serious [[styles of capital]] analysis on where contributions and users were coming from, why they were motivated, etc., and instead just relied on ideology.  Then they got competitors, new licenses, etc., and weren't able to deal with it.  They had no rational answers for the various objections made to [[GPL]] provisions.  They ended up fueling spinoffs that lost the [[viral license]] provisions that were the most important things.
-. Change of license would be near impossible on Wikipedia given the huge number of contributors who agreed to submit to the judgement of no one, not even Jim Wales (he is not mentioned in the GNU GFDL, nor on the Wikipedia disclaimer).  It will probably be the subject of power struggle in future, or forks that want to add invariant sections, credit authors or editors or certifiers that the material is accurate etc.  This can be avoided by offering "a vote" or "a voice" to authors or editors in the [[Consumerium Governance Organisation]], however that works, and mentioning that in the disclaimer.
+[[Consumerium Software License]] and any [[Green Documentation License]] must really have [[viral license]] provisions like [[GFDL]] or [[GPL]], but they should shun the [[Debian definition of free]] which puts [[green purposes]] no more important than those of an [[arms industry lobby group]].  Under those rules, no [[moral purchasing power]] can be gained.  So let's talk about this.
-. Wikipedia allows anonymous and pseudonymous contributors, but some users and even some sysops try to identify which ones are "the same people as" which other ones, and even amazingly try to pin "real names" on some combinations of these accounts.  This "outing", for whatever reason, makes it possible for anyone who is named this way to claim "well yes I wrote that but no I didn't submit it to Wikipedia, either they stole it or someone else submitted it there without my permission".  Wikipedia couldn't fight claims like this if they had allowed any "outing" by anyone with any official status, e.g. Jim Wales, or a sysop perhaps.  If there are open secrets that a lot of people believe, it becomes really hard to justify not getting in touch with the people supposedly responsible and asking them if they approve of the material being re/published or not.  It would also be important to make clear what is the obligation to credit authorship of anonymous authors, and get them to give up this right when they hit "save".  At present the Wikipedia disclaimer doesn't do this, and there is an obligation to (ridiculously) find out who wrote anonymous stuff so you can credit them for it.
-. [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] is so bad that it is a laughingstock on other wikis.  They are a bad model to follow.  We should be leaders in this regard, have a [[WikiCourt]], etc., so no one can claim they were unfairly treated, and never mind the ability to cause legal trouble, they won't want to, if they have been treated with a proper process.
-. [[Consumerium Governance Organisation]] must have power to just join some consortium of producers in future, if the license trouble emerges, or if the whole project ends up fusing with another like the [[Adbusters barcode]] scans or some [[audit]] procedure for [[Slow Food ark of taste]] products, or any [[safe trade]] thing to identify GMO products, or [[fair trade]] stuff.  These are all so similar to Consumerium to it would be smart to reserve the right to merge into them all, and make them all work using whatever license Adbusters, Slow Food, Greenpeace, Ten Thousand Villages, etc., like, rather than trying to tell them how to do what they have been doing for decades and being propaganda for GNU.  Remember many of these groups are suspicious of new or free technology!