Mayel - sunny side punk @mayel@sunbeam.city

@bob @Shamar (cont) Otherwise, they couldn’t be more different.
Open Source cares about business. Free software/freedom technology/ethical technology cares about people.

Open source is a tool for business. Free software is a tool for individuals.

@bob @Shamar That’s because Simon is squarely about Open Source. Open Source was a reactionary immune system response by the business community to Free Software (in its original form, limited to copyleft licenses). They could see the value in free as in free labour and the value of privatisation but they didn’t want the “share alike” aspects of Stallman’s licenses. The only thing that Open Source and Free Software have in common is that the source is open.

@bhaugen Capitalists centralising everything and always competing for profit rather than collaborating can never get cooperativism right. Free Software is anathema to their process, even if they benefit from it, there's a fundamental philosophical impossibility in being for capital and being for collaboration at the same time. US Liberals really need to make their minds up.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

@strypey @mayel @matslats

(Part 2 of 2)

Many cooperatives could form to develop various apps that us the protocol.

And also many cooperatives could use the protocol, apps, etc, to conduct their cooperative activities.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

If you consider a platform cooperative to be a centralized and hosted system owned, operated, and governed by a cooperative, it is easy to tell what the cooperative owns.

If it's an open protocol, how does a cooperative own it?

A cooperative could form to create and maintain software that runs the protocol. SSB is starting more than one organization like that

Or cooperative could form to host sites that run the protocol, for example, social.coop. (part 1 of 2)

Bringing back my favorite comic.
https://twitter.com/maryneelahaye

How to not maintain an open-source software:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/calibre/+bug/1714107

RT @rawkode@twitter.com: I wish more open source communities would move their chat away from Slack and use http://matrix.org

Aren't we all fed up with 10k message limits and 32 different logins?

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/rawkode/status/1062829349789937664

Are they any discussion going on about implementing #GPG for the #fediverse ? Could it be done ?

As of now, the admin can read our DMs, but maybe we could have a solution to that ?

#infosec #askmasto

Want to make apps for the @Purism #Librem5? We published a simple roadmap for the libhandy GTK+ phone widgets library, so you can get a grasp of our release cadence: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/libhandy/wikis/home

@bhaugen @strypey @mayel I'm no expert, just looking for the most achievable way to connect all the diverse social movements. ActivityPub seems like the right wagon to ride at the moment.

@strypey @mayel @matslats

While they are not sufficient, I would emphasize a bit more that open protocols are necessary.

I don't think it is possible to get where I think we want to go using one platform where everybody needs to use the same software and host. Doesn't allow enuf room for variation or local creativity. And the singular platform will always get too big to understand.

But boots on the ground organizing live people are also necessary and more important.

@mayel @matslats
What allows them to dominate? They have financial resources smaller players don't. For example, they can pay as many fulltime staff as they need to make their products and services more attractive than more freedom-respecting alternatives. They can get their PR posters slapped up all over major cities. Protocols + cooperatives offers us a way to compete with this. The point of Platform Cooperativism is that neither can do it alone, which is what Matt's essay seems to miss.

Matt Slater responds to the rise of the #PlatformCooperativism movement by issuing a call for #ProtocolCooperativism:
https://platform.coop/stories/protocol-cooperativism