RvTV95XBeo ,

Inb4 Google buys up 51% of memberships and “vote” to move Firefox to Chromium.

LesserAbe ,

I don’t see much benefit of a fork being a member coop, since the product is already free. I could potentially see a worker coop - if this fork was intended to make a profit, and the people working on it are then incentivized to improve the product because they’ll personally benefit, then maybe we’d see more movement and innovation.

Milk_Sheikh ,

The fork is to preserve the core browser experience and provide security updates. If you hate AI jank bloating software, your best options for a browser is Chrome suffering. Certainly, you can refuse updates on Firefox going forward if they commit to this path, but you’re a single missing patch away from being an easier target for bad actors to exploit your security vulnerabilities

orrk ,

nothing stops forks from implementing the same security features…

Vash63 ,

Firefox is developed in the open and accepts outside contributions already. The only thing this is adding is a paid membership.

Rebels_Droppin ,
@Rebels_Droppin@lemmy.world avatar

A paid membership to vote on changes and additions to the program. I think that would be pretty beneficial honestly.

surewhynotlem ,

Don’t need a co-op for that. Just fork it and make the changes.

Rebels_Droppin ,
@Rebels_Droppin@lemmy.world avatar

True, you can. But for people who may not have the skill or time but still value the browser, I think it isn’t a bad idea. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Bob_Robertson_IX ,

Then pay someone who does have the time and skill to fork it and make the change you want.

GenEcon ,

So instead of a free vote you only get a paid vote?

LibertyLizard ,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

Is there a free vote now? Have I somehow missed this?

HerbalGamer ,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

accepts outside contributions already

LibertyLizard ,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

Sure but those contributors don’t have a functional role in managing the project. This idea seems clearly distinct from the status quo.

orrk ,

They do? in fact they dictate almost the entire project, that’s how open source works

ProvableGecko , (edited )

Yeah, I remember how the “community” reacted when they made that homophobic asshole quit. They still won’t shut the fuck up about it, about how mozilla cares more about wokeness than the browser whenever there’s a girls’ coding initiative or the like. I don’t want those assholes having a say in anything.

DARbarian ,
@DARbarian@lemmy.world avatar

Well this just sounds like Librewolf with more steps

bobs_monkey ,

And hopefully Librewolf keeps AI out of their code.

dumpsterlid ,

Interesting!

HerbalGamer ,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

You see cooperation, I see a subscription.

bionicjoey ,

If there was legal ownership that would be different. But it’s open source so cooperative ownership doesn’t add much. It’s already there for everyone to use and modify as they like

Nesola ,

The mass won’t even consider being part of a paid membership of a cooperative that’s only purpose is a web browser. That would be the way to drive them even more into Chrome or Safari.

lurch ,

i don’t think you need to be a paid member to use the finished product. membership is for having a say in what will be changed.

NateNate60 ,

This has some serious “only landowners should be allowed to vote” vibes

I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software.

meekah ,
@meekah@lemmy.world avatar

I mean, I don’t really think that’s a fair comparison because people aren’t being forced to use this theoretical browser, so it’s not like the “landowners” are making decisions that are forced onto everyone else. It’s more of a “We are using our money/labor to build a house here and everyone can use it for free, we just get to decide the layout”.

Free software, in my book, means software, that respects the users privacy and provides them full control over the software, and that anyone can use, regardless of what they plan to use it for, even when they make their own money off of it by using the software to provide a service for example. It does not mean that it’s a democratic approach to the decision making process in development.

abessman ,

I will say directly that this model of governance is incompatible with the tenets of free software.

Which of the four freedoms does it fall short of?

orrk ,

2, and by extension 3 and 4

Hell depending on what this capital class votes for even 1 might be out the window.

abessman ,

How?

orrk ,

because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute, even the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it

abessman ,

because having some capital class dictate the project is entirely antithetical to having the choice to contribute

Why?

the AI stuff is just being contributed by a few large companies who want it

Contributing something because you want it is how free software works.

orrk ,

yes, and having a subscription based shareholder system is antithetical to this

abessman ,

Repeating it doesn’t make it true. As long as the code is released under a FOSS license, the development model doesn’t matter.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •