commit 0639bc03e9b5d8e61c923e6beb51aa166bdfd781
parent 5fbf679596e629f79b266f1c1e3900aedae5ea91
Author: ugrnm <ugrnm@web>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2025 13:37:17 +0100
ref
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/FLOSS.mdwn b/FLOSS.mdwn
@@ -7,4 +7,8 @@ The two major definitions of FLOSS are free software and open source software. T
* (strong, weak) copyleft licenses. Such licenses impose the person making modification to copyleft material to share their modification under the same condition/license than the code they modified. The idea is to promote circulation and virality;
* permissive or copyfree/copycentre licenses. Such licenses have much more simple conditions for reuse, if any, making possible to use such source for closed source software and proprietary systems.
-While a popular method for software production and distribution, FLOSS has been increasingly scrutinised for its underlying liberal, possibly ultra-liberal ideology that has been more useful to the for-profit software industry, than it has been useful to foster the much anticipated digital commons of public interest, as envisioned in the late 90s and 00s. This is because both free software and open source software proponents support the idea of permitting the (re)use of FLOSS source code for *any* purpose. As a result a growing number of [[post-free culture]] licenses have started to emerge in the late 10s and early 20s to address issues of ethics and exploitation found in the *for any purpose* take of FLOSS.
+While a popular method for software production and distribution, FLOSS has been increasingly scrutinised for its underlying liberal, possibly ultra-liberal ideology that has been more useful to the for-profit software industry, than it has been useful to foster the much anticipated digital commons of public interest, as envisioned in the late 90s and 00s. This is because both free software and open source software proponents support the idea of permitting the (re)use of FLOSS source code for *any* purpose. As a result a growing number of post-free culture licenses have started to emerge in the late 10s and early 20s to address issues of ethics and exploitation found in the *for any purpose* take of FLOSS.[^nocommons]
+
+As a result, permacomputing practices, while frequently using and generating FLOSS projects, remain highly critical of this approach. Permacomputing does not see FLOSS as a de-facto solution, but one of many relevant approaches for software production and distribution.
+
+[^nocommons]: See Aymeric Mansoux, "Nothing in Commons: the end of digital collective ownership?", 2025, [https://collectiefeigendom.nl/en/ownership/digital-collective-ownership](parenthesis could be used as well, sure, or long — em dashes, but if you're going to fork the discussion to something that's too long to fit in the flow of the main text, and that does not need its own page, then a footnote can be quite handy).
