Debate emerges over licensing and project strategy
3 Nov 1 10:10 PM · 10d ago · 4 comments · 1 source · development 3 of 8
Multiple commenters criticize the Apache 2.0 licensing choice as insufficient for protecting against corporate exploitation, with some suggesting GPL or copyleft licenses would better align with the movement's ideology. Others question whether recreating software alone can harm major corporations.
OccupySaaS Movement organizerLaid-off engineers (collective) Movement participants
The whole story postscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 4 voices · verbatim
-
Specifically, they pay for the cronyism aspect of the service. They pay because they're friends with the founder (or at least expect kickbacks), not because they need the features of the software. The features are only there to provide narrative support (I.e. justification for the money being paid). You can see that this is the case when the…
-
I feel like this would be better as a federation. Each project on its own. Some shared resources and interconnection.Even better if there was a tiny seed funding mechanism.And then some clever growth funding.There's prior attempts in this general area, pre AI, like Zebras Unite that have some lessons.
-
Given how many FOSS alternatives exist, I'd hope that such projects could turn their attention towards the AI models themselves, creating an open-weights model from an existing proprietary model, or somesuch.Unfortunately, that won't be a low effort thing where you can burn $100 to create an imitation of something, so all we get is vibe-coded…
-
The mistake is thinking the first S is what people pay for when it is the second S.
All 8 developments of OccupySaaS: Laid-Off Engineers Launch Open-Source SaaS… →
Hacker News