commit ca69dae70931df96a7f5818761d9ec530e9c42c8
parent 87e6cc822b58ca18b38b5d6008d17c460dec2429
Author: ugrnm <ugrnm@web>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 14:26:46 +0200
tldr in bold
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/FLOSS.mdwn b/FLOSS.mdwn
@@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ The two major definitions of FLOSS are free software and open source software. T
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 only as *one* of many different already existing, or yet-to-be-invented approaches for sharing and producing digital culture.
+**Consequently, 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).
