Thoughtful, well-argued reflection on software licensing. It's long been evident that the "software freedom" battlegrounds defined in the 70s/80s are often anachronistic at best, and also obvious that "free" licenses can be abused as a tactic for open-washing harmful actions.
https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/1382346976293949444
These shortcomings are a big part of the reasons we make apps remixable by default on @Glitch. Building a community with norms of reuse & sharing is far more powerful than any software license can ever be. Behavior & expectations matter more than any legal language.
And making it normal for everyone to create the apps they need (and the web they want) instead of relying solely on services that surveil them, or systems that keep their data captive, does more to advance actual control and "freedom" for people than any abstract license can.
In his piece, @martinkl argues software should be local-first, meaning it runs on your computer. I'd argue it's more important that many of the apps you use regularly be local in the sense of "local ingredients" — connected to your community, and sourced in responsible ways.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
