17

First draft of a PPL-based CopyFarLeft license suitable for software coinsh.red

Submitted by jadedctrl in freeAsInFreedom

Please take a look-- feel free to make any improvements or suggestions. I want this to be a viable CopyFarLeft license for software!

The goal is to create a license that:

  • Is Copyleft (source-code must be distributed if requested along with the binary)
  • Only allows commercial redistribution by worker-cooperatives and other groups directed democratically, where workers own the means of production (basically, the PPL's anti-capitalist/anti-alienation nature)

It's based off the Peer Production License which itself's from the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. Since it's based off of the CC license, the PPL's terrible for software. Anyone can share software under the PPL without sharing the source code! Since the PPL is the only CopyFarLeft license, that means there are no CopyFarLeft options for software…

Let's fix that with this license, shall we? :)

For easy reading, you can see the differences between the PPL and this license here.

Basically, I added 1-J, 1-K, 4-C, and 8-C.

My definition of software (1-J) needs some work, and 4-C and 8-C might be unnecessarily redundant.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

Fossidarity wrote (edited )

Could this be added to choosealicense.com? That way it will be automatically added to the list of licenses in Github, thus spreading it. The requirements are a bit much, especially getting the 1000 public repo's, but I at least will convert all my repo's to this license so that's already ~40 :)

4

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Hey, it's forward progress! I'll convert my repos tonight, too.

This license should probably have a name to distinguish it from the PPL-- I'm thinking about using "CSL" (Cooperative Software License... or, as a double meaning, the Communist Software license, jajaja).

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

jadedctrl wrote

So to all digital works in general? I thought about that, actually, and still kind of want to add it-- but that's more of a courtesy that can be really difficult. Some programs' (especially with images and videos) “source” formats can be several GB larger than the rendered version.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

9

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Is the goal to prevent capitalists from profiting off the work, or to convert capitalist workplaces into collectives

The point's to make it a bit harder for a capitalist workplace to take a piece of software, make marginal to no changes, and sell it. It also lets the author have a bit more control over their work, and could help them make a living— if you write a really good piece of software and a capitalist-business would like to use it, they could request sub-licensing under some royalty or just under a few conditions.

Copyleft forces them to share their changes, which is better for society because it puts that code into the hands of the masses. We are tricking evil corporations into behaving in a moral way. It's really a brilliant license and hack, and it makes perfect sense as a way to subvert capitalism and force it to work to the benefit of the people.

Just like you'd use a permissive license if you want a piece of software to spread at all costs, or you'd use the GPL if significant changes are going to be made to it by companies, you'd use this license if your program is the type to be kind of static (as in, if someone wanted to sell it, they probably wouldn't need to make many changes, or it's useful only in a set few use-cases, etc. EDIT: If there're negligible gains to allowing free use to capitalist firms-- or none at all-- this is a good choice).

It's better for an up-and-coming standard to use MIT, a kernel to use GPL, and a game to use this.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

jadedctrl wrote

God no, I don't like pushover licenses. I think they're useful for some purposes, but not for many.

-4

rms wrote

Congratulations, you've created a nonfree license that no one will ever use.

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-5

rms wrote

lmao what a cringey response

i guess this place truly is kids larping

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-1

rms wrote

are you just upset i took the username lmao

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-4

rms wrote

more disgusting is that you don't understand what free software means

6

ziq wrote

stop creating a toxic atmosphere already, we get enough of that everyday under capitalism without having to deal with it here too.

-1

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )

4

ziq wrote

You were warned, that gets you a forum ban. Next time it's site-wide.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-4

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )

6

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Deleted for breach of terms of service as u/no_fun_allowed has noted.

Consider this a warning and a reminder of the ToS. A forum ban will follow any repeat offense.

Feel welcome to look around f/Ability and f/Trans for guidance if you have trouble understanding why this has happened.

-7

rms wrote

blow it out your ass princess

6

64WqwCbVQnRhGau wrote

Pretty sure Stallman IRL would disapprove of your behavior using his name.

-3

rms wrote

pretty sure he'd be happy calling you lot out for supporting nonfree software