[abetusk]

My main critique is their non-commercial licensing. For example, the linked article is BY-NC-SA4.0.

My critique is pretty minor as most of the technical releases from 100 rabbits, as far as I can tell, is libre/free licensed, with the non-commercial licensing reserved for writing and art. Even so, it means there's effort required to decouple the non-commercial aspects of projects from their libre parts and sends a big signal, to me at least, that I should only ever consider their strictly technical work for use.

When talking about permacomputing, for example, I don't know why one wouldn't encourage, in any way possible, commercial viability that would lead to the stated goal.

I have an affinity for the 100 rabbits folks, and I deeply respect a lot of their work, but their reliance on non-commercial licenses means that they're tacitly supporting copyright terms that are dis-proportionally long that, in most cases, is well over a century at this point.

Note that Stallman also has the same stance, putting his work under a "no-derivatives" license, so it's not like free software folks believe in "free culture", either.

[entaloneralie]

It's a good stance, I commend it. Although, there's a history as to why the license is there.

The license exists there so that we were able to do take down requests on OpenSea. We had to make the asset license explicit for OpenSea to take down the copied works off their network.

In a different world where we are not made to participate in crypto ecosystems against our will, we would not have that restriction.

[abetusk]

I know I wouldn't want to restrict the use of my works just because there's a crypto bro out there that might profit from an NFT.

When putting software under a libre/free license, there are compromises to be made to promote freedom. One of them is accepting that the software that's created might be used for purposes that are considered bad by the author, such as being used by military entities for violence [0]. This would be the same argument I would make for artistic works, where I would argue that the benefits of providing freedom in use of the works outweighs the potential for abuse.

Part of my worry is that there's a large part of technology that is artistic (writing, text, pictures, illustration, art, music, etc.) that will be buried under a century of copyright. The overlong copyright terms means that parts of our culture will be restricted from the commons well beyond the window of relevancy.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

[geocar]

> When talking about permacomputing, for example, I don't know why one wouldn't encourage, in any way possible, commercial viability that would lead to the stated goal.

Because capitalism is what destroys the world. Fucking duh.

There's very little point in spending so much time thinking about C compilers in forth that run on scavenged z80s these days if capitalism is actually viable.

[yellowapple]

> Because capitalism is what destroys the world. Fucking duh.

The issue is that “commercial” includes plenty of not-necessarily-capitalist entities as well, like sole proprietors and cooperatives (sole proprietors being single-member worker cooperatives).

Of course, a society in which worker cooperatives and individual craftspersons are the dominant forms of economic participation is probably (hopefully!) also a society which has done away with intellectual property and the enforcement thereof, rendering software license terms (including non-commercial use clauses) entirely moot.