@strypey you boosted
https://mastodon.social/@tomat0/110436554609027254
on social coding's ideas.
Everything the OP says is accomplished by #AGPL + https://spi-inc.org without the social overheads their proposal has.
The most useful point was probably about the number of "me-too" projects that abound in #FOSS. The most irritating for me way back was #GNU Sather. Focusing on formats/protocols is useful, and the #4opens approach soounds better for that than FOSS.
@tetrislife
The social overhead of those Foundations is pretty huge too. But they exist because it turns out that for certain things, it's even more social overhead to have a different person doing them for every little project that uses their legal and financial services. The same with OpenCollective hosts. Each one of them could run their own instance of the OC software, but it's less social overhead to run one big one.
@tetrislife I think what the Social Coding folks want to see is many guilds forming, so together they can form what the Microsolidarity folks call Crowds (mutual benefit networks made up of Congregations, each made up of a number of small Crews). The theory is these could serve the same purpose as the Foundations. But in a more horizontal and widely distributed way. More resilient.
(3/3)
@tetrislife
> Everything the OP says is accomplished by #AGPL + https://spi-inc.org without the social overheads their proposal has
I'm not aware of SPI being a legal or financial umbrella for any fediverse projects, nor any of the older Open Source Foundations. FSF is the only Foundation that kind of does, as the legal host of the GNU Project and G social.
(1/2)