🚀 Seen my posts and want more? Dive deep into the issues with Big Tech at Escape Big Tech!

💡 Need FOSS-focused software solutions? Reach out on Matrix at @dannym:balooga.xyz!

  • 2 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle











  • I’d like to correct you by saying that GPL is DEFINITELY enforceable in countries other than america. I can’t say about every country (tho that will be the case with every license), but for instance it’s definitely enforceable in europe. For example in Germany and France there have been a few lawsuits that the FSF helped carry out against immoral companies.

    GPL Enforcement Cases - FSFE

    If you’re in Germany the Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source Software is a law firm that literally works only on enforcing the GPL, FOSS licenses and other technological human rights that are being ignored by big tech.

    If you want to be even more sure about European Enforcement you may want to checkout the EUPL v1.2 which is GPLv3 compatible.

    In other countries, such as Japan, the GPL is also enforceable, so long as you treat it the same way as copyright, so you’re willing to sue companies that you know are stealing from you (the FSF can help you if you can’t afford it).

    Russia and China don’t care, but… it’s Russia and China, that’s not really news, is it? :)

    EDIT: I will write a full article about the legal enforce-ability of FOSS licenses such as the GPL before the end of the year


  • MIT is a terrible license that only got popular because of the popularity of the anti-open source movement in the last decade.

    one could write books about what’s wrong with the MIT license.

    It could even theoretically be argued that MIT has in some ways allowed big tech companies to proliferate, by effectively allowing them to take open-source code, modify it, and then close it off in their proprietary software. What does this mean? It means that the work of countless dedicated open-source developers can be co-opted by companies that have done almost none of the work, reaping several billions of dollars, while the developers who actually did the work make no money. It’s like opening your doors wide only to have someone come in, take your stuff, and sell it back to you.

    In contrast, in licenses like the GPL, there’s a requirement that if you use GPL-licensed code and modify it, your new code also has to be open-source under the GPL.




  • The concept of competition among tech companies has done a complete 180 on its original meaning. It’s no longer predominantly about crafting superior products; rather, it’s become a race to secure the largest amount of investor funding.

    In this transformed landscape, the product itself and revenue generation often take a backseat, or at best, hold a tertiary importance. The heart of customer-centric ethos, especially crucial elements like data security, are now distressingly overlooked. What matters is getting the next investment to become the next “unicorn” and be acquired for billions of dollars. Silicon Valley Companies want the easy way out, do only a fraction of the work for an exponential amount of the benefits.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are reasons to seek investment, getting a good product built is actually complex and you actually need a lot of different people working on it. The alternative is losing years of your life on a sisyphean ordeal of soul-crushing, hundred-hour work weeks (and that’s real work, not “let me check twitter” work), making you question your life choices and whether you should just throw it all away, abandon technology, become a hermit and move to a shed in the mountains.

    The problem is that the EXPECTATION today is that you’re gonna build a third of a product, care about 1% of the actual business behind it and then pivoting exclusively to the pursuit of investment, letting everything else rot