Imagine, for example, an open-source software license that ensured that when used by a company, the highest paid employee of that company could not earn more than 100x the lowest paid employee, or a license that ensured that half of the profits produced by the software were distributed evenly among the employees of that company. Imagine a license which dictated that profits gained from the software had to reflect price reductions for consumers
So some kind of socialism. No thanks.
This is much simpler: as users, we should be able to own the software we have (whether we bought it or not). This is non-negotiable. When you buy a car or a washing machine, you can take the whole thing apart and fix it if you want to. Software should be no different, and therefore, the intruder here is proprietary software, a privilege, a concession that is given to all of us but completely undermines the market. That is the root problem.
“Socialism” as in Japan (CEOs earn much less there), or the US start-up culture (stock options are usually part of the salary)? Its really funny how people think something is “socialism” even though it is a widely used practice in capitalist societies.
That said… you can not enforce this with software licenses.
So some kind of socialism. No thanks.
This is much simpler: as users, we should be able to own the software we have (whether we bought it or not). This is non-negotiable. When you buy a car or a washing machine, you can take the whole thing apart and fix it if you want to. Software should be no different, and therefore, the intruder here is proprietary software, a privilege, a concession that is given to all of us but completely undermines the market. That is the root problem.
“Socialism” as in Japan (CEOs earn much less there), or the US start-up culture (stock options are usually part of the salary)? Its really funny how people think something is “socialism” even though it is a widely used practice in capitalist societies.
That said… you can not enforce this with software licenses.