I read this article recently <https://lipu.dgold.eu/original-sin> & I’m
curious if any of these copyFARleft licenses have a place. They don’t
qualify under FSF or OSI as “free” software, but that definition has
always been muddy & required a lot of explanation. There’s always reason
to question how things are done & some guidance would help me understand
the ramifications of choosing such a license–where generally they are
free for laborers & collectives, but not for those seeking profit
specifically. Whose freedoms are we aiming for? And if there isn’t a
right/wrong answer, should we see something like the License Zero
options like Parity <https://paritylicense.com> & Prosperity
<https://prosperitylicense.com> listed even if they are not
GPL-compatible?

--
toastal ไข่ดาว | https://toast.al
PGP: 7944 74B7 D236 DAB9 C9EF  E7F9 5CCE 6F14 66D4 7C9E

I've written briefly on the subject of ethical source, a branch of
copyfarleft, here:

https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/public-inbox/%3CC125C6RFZ9JQ.2PYJMAKMD2F8A%40homura%3E

I can elaborate more on the specific licenses as well.

First, to some extent, these might be considered crayon licenses, so all
of those arguments apply.

Regarding the parity license: the mainstream approach to copyleft with
respect to how the copyleft clauses are triggered depend to some extent
on the exact nature of copyright law; if they could be stronger then I
suppose they would be. There are constraints with respect to
"distribution" and other such invocations in the law that copyleft
licenses tend to be modeled around. I would wish to see an IP lawyer
weigh in on this approach, I suspect it does not really work (and is
probably not a meaningful improvement over mainstream copyleft in any
case).

Regarding the Prosperity license, see the following:

https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html

General commercial use is an important feature of free software, not a
flaw.