this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
164 points (88.0% liked)

Work Reform

9977 readers
163 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Link to original post: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/111932214690841585

Link to news link shown in the photo: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/mozilla-lays-off-60-people-wants-to-build-ai-into-firefox/

Cooperative ownership for all businesses too!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nesola@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The mass won’t even consider being part of a paid membership of a cooperative that’s only purpose is a web browser. That would be the way to drive them even more into Chrome or Safari.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

i don't think you need to be a paid member to use the finished product. membership is for having a say in what will be changed.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] meekah@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

2, and by extension 3 and 4

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

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] orrk@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] abessman@lemmy.world 1 points 8 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.