Five

joined 11 months ago
MODERATOR OF
 
[–] Five@slrpnk.net 6 points 11 hours ago

Use this one weird trick to get free energy from your old smoke detectors!

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Is there a clear business model? It seems like the goal is to make it free for collectives and non-profit use, and then collect fees from for-profit companies. The CC-NC-SA has an obvious business case because not everyone has the capability to set up and use the software, but it's popularity can create a secondary market for people to pay for other people to host it for them -> leading to revenue. Basically the Freeware model with the addition of the source being open. With art it creates a carve-out for copyright that allows free sharing, but once the art is used in a commercial context, the artist should get a cut of the revenue.

But if there's a secondary market of collectives providing that service without the need to pay, wouldn't they out-compete a privately owned service that pays for the software? Why would a privately owned service fund a software company that doesn't want them to exist? Likewise, why would a corporation use an artist's work that was shared under this license?

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 17 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Kyle Gass’s agent was Michael Greene of Greene Talent Agency. Which conservative clients has he represented? If it's true, someone should really hold his feet to the fire on this.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 10 points 13 hours ago

Succinct and eloquent.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 1 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I think this would be a difficult sell, in part because not only would you need to write ironclad terms, you've need a whole new organization to enforce it. I don't think the Free Software Foundation would endorse it.

I could see a similar thing working with art and literature though - Creative Commons already has a non-commercial license, so creating a new category of restricted artistic license doesn't seem too far off from what they've already endorsed.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 2 points 14 hours ago

No one is illegal!

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you! To me his first words after being shot were much more iconic than even that fist-flag-photo.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not a Marxist, but I know that what Marx believed changed over his lifetime, expressing new ideas in his letters while rejecting old ones, and removing and altering sections of his works in later editions. So being 'Marxist' doesn't necessitate incorporating all of his ideas on authoritarianism. Typically the Marxists I meet do philosophically adapt to new information, though admittedly in many parts of the world 'Marxist-Leninist Thought' is a canonical set of ideas meant to be memorized from a textbook.

people’s unwillingness to admit that the Soviet Union and CCP weren’t just “unlucky” attempts

To claim the USSR was inevitably authoritarian ignores the nature of the revolution that created it. The Tsar was defeated by a coalition of groups, which in turn were cannibalized by the authoritarian Bolsheviks. There is no guarantee that the result of that battle royale would end with Lenin the victor. It's an erasure of the Black Guards, the Krondstat Navy, and the Makhnovshchina to name a few.

No-one is claiming the PRC was an "unlucky" attempt. Mao admired some aspects of anarchist thought, but he and his comrades based their revolutionary goals on the already existing Soviet state.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The pittance donation was made right after the election -- after the get out the vote campaign was over.

The most credible explanation I've heard is that the kid lost a bet. It lists his name and address, but those kinds of donations don't have the same due diligence as voter registration, so it could also have been someone else trolling him.

view more: next ›