commit 0a037d308469840e0728f3749b7add3c47323762
parent 37c1f20245b9f182c393593173897ebd7273f848
Author: ugrnm <ugrnm@web>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2025 13:48:52 +0100
empty web commit
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/FLOSS.mdwn b/FLOSS.mdwn
@@ -7,8 +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.[^nocommons]
+While a popular method for software production and distribution, FLOSS has been increasingly scrutinised for its underlying ultraliberal and libertarian ideologies that have been more useful to the ICT 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.
+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 only as *one* of many different already existing, or yet-to-be-invented approaches for sharing and producing digital culture.
[^nocommons]: See Aymeric Mansoux, "Nothing in Commons: the end of digital collective ownership?", 2025, [https://collectiefeigendom.nl/en/ownership/digital-collective-ownership](https://collectiefeigendom.nl/en/ownership/digital-collective-ownership).
