HN Explorer

24 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 69.6 ms ] thread
tpmx
An organization that seeks shared profit for all of its members, and allows non-members to set the cost of their labor

This doesn't specify how the shared profit is distributed. Makes sense, after all, some animals are more equal than others.

oytis
Companies offering stock-based compensation should be fine?
jasonhansel
It specifies in the third clause:

> If the User is an organization with owners, then all owners are workers and all workers are owners with equal equity and/or equal vote.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
josephcsible
I hate licenses like these that try to make themselves look like something innocuous like the MIT license, but are actually closed-source and proprietary.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
panarky
The source is open, it's right there.

The limitation on who can legally deploy it does not affect the fact that the source code is open.

Turing_Machine
I notice that it allows "educational institutions", many of which are operated on a for-profit basis.
the_third_wave
Tell me, mr. Communist programmer, what good is a program... without a computer to run it on? And don't you tell me about those amazing Soviet computers since they were all cloned from western systems. No capitalism -> no computers, at least not for plebs like you and me.
panarky
"We should improve society somewhat."

"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

curtisblaine
This idea that communism somehow means "improving society" is beyond belief. It's not like it's never been tried.
josephcsible
Banning capitalism is the opposite of improving society. There's a reason that everyone who wanted to cross the Iron Curtain for a better life was trying to go from east to west.
panarky
It's just a tiny open source software project. It's not a Stalinist purge.
josephcsible
Well it's not actually open source, just visible source. But anyway, yes, it is a tiny step, but it's still a step in the wrong direction.
panarky
Seems like perfect freedom to me, freedom for the author to control how their intellectual property is used, and freedom for everyone else to use it or not.

Hard to see any harm at all, certainly not "banning capitalism".