@tante the whole idea of the GPL was to "defend against appropriation". This worked great for a while but the appropriators had ideas, too. We need new ones now.

@tante The new generation of open-source algorithms and AI should have this built in by default.

Could you point me to some pages where these algorithms and AIs are being discussed?

@tante or my thinking is that we haven't actorly effective used this opening to defend the commons https://hamishcampbell.com/to-remember-our-own-history/ as you start to say, but don't, the best defence is an active attack #activism

@tante Anything the takers can do in software, we givers can do in software too.

The takers might do it sooner and faster, but the best in class solution to any technology problem is eventually the free and open source solution.

@tante What should/could have been done to avoid this?

@tante @josemurilo
Oh yes, we have even thought deep about how we can do it against appropriation. So that just can't just be prohibited by someone.

@tante We did. It's called Copyleft. The OS crowd with their “oh, this is communist, let's do BSDL/MPL/free for grifter licences” ruined it.

@tante
stop worrying about appropriation.

@tante

I'd like to mention that the "Open Source" verbiage was a soft-peddling of "Free Software" ideals to corporations from day one (mid-to-late 1990s, IIRC).

What we call #FOSS today was originally for hackers by hackers. Now corporations and deep pockets are involved because it's not "cool" to have linux machine that can't print or run AAA games.

I like printing, and... I'm quite ambivalent towards AAA games, but I like having an OS that runs well.

But we seriously lost something along the way.

P.S., I do not mean to say that the "soft peddling" wasn't done with the very best of intentions. But it is what it is.

@tante yep, while we had copy left as an approach to defend to grow the commons, we never really developed what Ostrom named Collective-choice arrangements, to have decision making power. See the governance of Mozilla, CC etc.

@tante This is why I use BY-SA, as opposed to just BY, or BY-NC, or CC0. SA obliges you to pass on the same rights you've made use of. You can't fence off the commons.

@tante Interestingly, the reason for having modular licenses was the "market-based, liberal idea" of allowing freedom of choice. (This is why, initially, CC had even more modules, including a "Sampling license" etc.). The more modules, the more license versions, coming with exponentially growing incompatibility issues, defeating the whole purpose of striving for a commons of digital goods.