• 0 Posts
  • 215 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2023

help-circle


  • Not really. The problem with FOSS licensing is that it was too altruistic, with the belief that if enough users and corporations depended on the code, the community would collectively do the work necessary to maintain the project. Instead, capitalism chose to exploit FOSS as free labor most of the time, without any reciprocal investment. They raise an enormous amount of issues, and consume a large amount of FOSS developer time, without paying their own staff to fix the bugs they need resolved — in the software their products depend on. At that point the FOSS developer is no longer a FOSS developer, and instead is the unpaid slave labor of a corporation. Sure, FOSS devs could just ignore external inputs, but that’s not easy to do when you’ve invested years of your life in a project. Exploiting kindness may be legal, but it should never be justified or tolerated.

    Sure, FOSS licenses legally permit that kind of use, but just because homeless shelters allow anyone to eat their food, and sleep in their beds, that doesn’t make the rich man who exploits that charity ethically or morally justified. The rich man who exploits that charity (i.e. free labor), and offers nothing in return, is a scummy dog cunt; there are no two ways about it. The presence of lecherous parasites can destroy the entire charity; they can mean the difference between sustainability and burnout.

    FOSS should always be free for all personal, free, and non profit use, but once someone in the chain starts depending on FOSS to generate income and profit, some of that profit should always be reinvested in those dependencies. That’s what FOSS is now learning; to reject the exploitation and greed of lecherous parasites.



  • I, for one, would not mind if my property value stagnated or decreased so that others could have a better life.

    This is why you will never be in any decision making capacity.

    IMO you aren’t really a part of the problem if you support increasing density around you and policy that makes units an attractive option for the majority (improving public transport, amenities, minimum building standards such as sound proofing, floor-plan and storage space, HVAC, etc). You can’t rely on individuals to voluntarily give up space they don’t need any more than you can rely on them to voluntarily give up money they don’t need. Any system which relies on discretionary kindness for the greater good is doomed to fail.

    Most people don’t choose detached housing because they need a backyard or extra space. They do it because it’s a better cost-benefit when compared to the higher density housing stock. The solution is to make higher density the more attractive cost-benefit.