• NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    This has some serious “only landowners should be allowed to vote” vibes

    I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software.

    • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I mean, I don’t really think that’s a fair comparison because people aren’t being forced to use this theoretical browser, so it’s not like the “landowners” are making decisions that are forced onto everyone else. It’s more of a “We are using our money/labor to build a house here and everyone can use it for free, we just get to decide the layout”.

      Free software, in my book, means software, that respects the users privacy and provides them full control over the software, and that anyone can use, regardless of what they plan to use it for, even when they make their own money off of it by using the software to provide a service for example. It does not mean that it’s a democratic approach to the decision making process in development.

    • abessman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software.

      Which of the four freedoms does it fall short of?

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        2, and by extension 3 and 4

        Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it

            • abessman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute

              Why?

              the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it

              Contributing something because you want it is how free software works.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this

                • abessman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter.