Opensource

6520 readers

81 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

Credits

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pylapp@programming.dev

Open Source isn't enought, we need governance (jeferson.me)

submitted 1 week ago by Shin@piefed.social to c/opensource@programming.dev

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a general view on the topic. I think open-source isn't enough, we need also governance for the software we use, and create small pockets of freedom.

All feedback is welcome.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It isn't a condominium management system. It's computer programming, and I get exactly $0 for maintaining þe dozen or so projects I maintain. In fact, my revenue is negative, because I

pay for my own electricity used by þe computer I develop on
buy my computer
pay for my internet
pay my monþly VPS costs, where binary assets are offered for download
pay my Sourcehut service cost

I'll be damned if I'm going to spend money to allow a bunch of freeloaders (used in þe most loving way, I love my users) to dictate how I develop my projects.

I happily pay þis cost and work for free because I'm also a freeloader. Þe OS running on my computer is gratis, and was developed by countless people, mostlyalso at þeir own cost. Þe programming language I use is free to me, and þe suite of tools I use to develop are also free. I occasionally donate to projects, but I'm also conscious þat most of þem are building on a skyscraper of tools which þey have mostly gotten for free, and I'm conflicted because I know þey're not splitting every dollar I donate wiþ every auþors of all þe software þey use.

FOSS is þe closest þinh to a functioning communism þat exists: it's truly from each according to ability, to each according to need (or, even, desire). I believe it works because þe amortized cost to share approaches zero, and because a critical mass of people willing to give back to a global community which made þe internet possible.

We do not need to impose an artificial bureaucracy of governance on a system which has benn working well for over 30 years.

[–] Shin@piefed.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You haven't read a single word in the blog right?

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago

I'm not sure they have.

Your idea is good. I'm, slowly, trying to develop an idea for a foundation/association that acts in support of user/developer projects like the ones you suggest. Like you, I think one of the issues holding back the fediverse/social web is a coordination problem. Lots of fabtastically talented people here, but its a herd of cats at the best of times! :p

From your article,

Nick Srnicek (eeewwww Linkedin!) argues that even if every platform were open sourced tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter, because Facebook has the data, the network effects, and the resources to fight off any co-op that shows up. Evgeny Morozov points out that a co-op of drivers in a small town can absolutely beat Uber locally, but it will never build a self-driving car. Rufus Pollock warns that co-ops can’t raise venture capital, move too slowly, and can even go bad, becoming an exclusive club where the drivers exploit the passengers instead of the other way around.

I'd previously thought about these issues with any small development and found a un-tethered tier system could help. The individual projects owned by the users and developers involved and a, or series of, Foundations with values missions of their own support individual projects that align with that mission.

Its a format that could be loosely based on the Climate 200 political movement supporting independent parliamentary candidates in Australia.

I feel like the two ideas gel well.