Spyke
lemmy.world

Firefox is developed in the open and accepts outside contributions already. The only thing this is adding is a paid membership.

47
lemmy.world

A paid membership to vote on changes and additions to the program. I think that would be pretty beneficial honestly.

4
GenEconreply
lemm.ee

So instead of a free vote you only get a paid vote?

14
slrpnk.net

Sure but those contributors don’t have a functional role in managing the project. This idea seems clearly distinct from the status quo.

2

They do? in fact they dictate almost the entire project, that's how open source works

1
lemmy.world

True, you can. But for people who may not have the skill or time but still value the browser, I think it isn't a bad idea. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

3
lemmy.world

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.

43
NateNate60reply
lemmy.world

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.

34

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.

18
abessmanreply
lemmy.world

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?

4
orrkreply
lemmy.world

2, and by extension 3 and 4

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

1
orrkreply
lemmy.world

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

1

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.

1

If there was legal ownership that would be different. But it's open source so cooperative ownership doesn't add much. It's already there for everyone to use and modify as they like

5

Yeah, I remember how the "community" reacted when they made that homophobic asshole quit. They still won't shut the fuck up about it, about how mozilla cares more about wokeness than the browser whenever there's a girls' coding initiative or the like. I don't want those assholes having a say in anything.

26
lemmy.world

I don't see much benefit of a fork being a member coop, since the product is already free. I could potentially see a worker coop - if this fork was intended to make a profit, and the people working on it are then incentivized to improve the product because they'll personally benefit, then maybe we'd see more movement and innovation.

22
lemm.ee

The fork is to preserve the core browser experience and provide security updates. If you hate AI jank bloating software, your best options for a browser is Chrome suffering. Certainly, you can refuse updates on Firefox going forward if they commit to this path, but you’re a single missing patch away from being an easier target for bad actors to exploit your security vulnerabilities

5

nothing stops forks from implementing the same security features....

1

Thanks! After further looking, I noticed that the ars technica article actually didn't actually say anything about cooperatives, which was the reason why I wanted to read it in the first place. Therefore I deleted my request.

Kudos to you for sharing/editing it, still! (:

3

You reached the end

Cooperative ownership as the next step of free open source software | Spyke