Conversation

Notices

1. mike_hales 💔*!?¿* (mikehales@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 30-Jun-2018 17:36:50 EDT mike_hales 💔*!?¿*

   Puzzled . . @mako makes a clear pitch on "Free software production needs free tools" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_nK6nP_RCY&feature=youtu.be
   And is very clear on #commons and #P2P (though says most code comes from solo not collaboration!). Yet not a hint of coop ownership of #platforms to keep tools honest & open (GitHub!). Surely tools today become platforms? And platforms require collaboration even if code doesn't? So why doesn't #coop follow automatically, as we talk tools? How does libre not equal coop in FLOSS world?

   1. mike_hales 💔*!?¿* (mikehales@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 30-Jun-2018 18:07:11 EDT mike_hales 💔*!?¿*

      in reply to

      Of course, when talking #coops and #tools I'm thinking of social.coop too. If social.coop exists to cooperatively own and operate tool platforms (did I get that right?) . . what other tools than Mastodon will come under the umbrella? And which kinds of users will they be tools for? Tech nerds? Coders? Ordinary everday folks? P2P/solidarity economy activists? Etcetera. Diverse use cases, can't serve 'em all well?

   2. Benjamin Mako Hill (mako@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 30-Jun-2018 18:15:29 EDT Benjamin Mako Hill

      in reply to

      @mike_hales Cooperative management of shared infrastructure is path to "libre." A more libertarian approach is decentralization and federation around fixed (or cooperatively managed?) protocols which deemphasize the need for shared infrastructure in some way.

      If we believe that effective cooperatives will be limited in scale or scope, a combination of the two may be necessary. This is more or less what we have here at social.coop which is part of a larger federated network.