• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

  • DARbarian
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 year ago

    Well this just sounds like Librewolf with more steps

  • Vash63
    link
    fedilink
    471 year ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    30
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    47
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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 (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      261 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        401 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            2, and by extension 3 and 4

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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                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

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  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.

        • silly goose meekah
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.