Copyfarleft: Progress or retrogress?

After reading [the publication][5] that originated this comment, please,
continue reading.

I have already seen this scene a long time ago, but I decided to investigate
before saying something without proofs.

After reading the definition of copyfarleft in the articles indicated by the
links of the publication I'm answering to, I searched for academic articles
related to the same subject, and also for the opinion of activists and
non-activists of the free software movement.

According to the copyfarleft movement, the licenses which follow this
movement must allow commercial redistribution [only if the redistributor is a
company or collective "owned by workers", in the other cases, the commercial
redistribution must be forbidden][2].

Passing very quickly through the page about [various licenses and their
compatibility with the licenses published by the Free Software
Foundation][1], it's possible to note similar licenses, such as: JSON
License; Microsoft Shared Source CLI, C#, and Jscript License; and University
of Utah Public License.

Note that these similar licenses that I have cited are all incompatíble, be
it with the GNU GPL, with the GNU FDL, with the GNU AGPL, and with the GNU
LGPL, and following the structure of the page, are categorized as non-free
licenses.

Furthermore, [free software can be "sold"][4] (read the article of this link,
which explains this possibility with more details, including the reason for
the quotes).

As I previously said, I looked, and continue looking, for opinions. Besides,
[I found a similar discussion on Reddit][3].

I think that the copyfarleft movement presents an injustice for those who
wish to commercially redistribute some functional data, since, besides trying
to restrict who can or cannot do so, it would be needed to define, in each
jurisdiction, what would be a "company owned by workers" and a "collective
owned by workers", besides having to define the "worker".

So, what's your opinion on this subject?

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
[2]: http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/copyfarleft-and-copyjustright
[3]:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3vz5h3/til_there_is_a_copyfarleft_license_which/
[4]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.en
[5]: https://diasporabr.com.br/posts/d3d74f40984b0133588c005056ba3b3d

> According to the copyfarleft movement, the licenses which follow this movement must allow commercial redistribution [only if the redistributor is a company or collective "owned by workers", in the other cases, the commercial redistribution must be forbidden][2].

That is not libre software, and it is not acceptable.

Even if you agree with their political agenda, not everyone does. And if you can restrict someone else's freedom to further your political agenda, others can do it, too. Suppose a program is under a license that allows commercial redistribution "only if the redistributor is not a Jew". The justification for this would be no worse than the justification of "copyfarleft".

Other places where this discussion was openned

* [Spanish forum of the GNU+Linux-libre Trisquel project][5].
* [Mailling list for general discussion of the Free Software Latin America][1].
* [Mailling list of the Projeto Software Livre - Brasil][2].
* [GNU Social][3].
* [Pump.io][4].

[1]: http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/discusion/2016/005716.html
[2]: http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/psl-brasil/2016-January/004836.html
[3]: https://quitter.se/notice/4390490
[4]: https://identi.ca/adfeno/note/-YJIk_IvTkKcZ3yBOR4cPg
[5]: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/copyfarleft-progresso-ou-retrocesso

Other places where this discussion was openned

* [Spanish forum of the GNU+Linux-libre Trisquel project][5].
* [Mailling list for general discussion of the Free Software Latin
America][1].
* [Mailling list of the Projeto Software Livre - Brasil][2].
* [GNU Social][3].
* [Pump.io][4].

[1]: http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/discusion/2016/005716.html
[2]:
http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/psl-brasil/2016-January/004836.html
[3]: https://quitter.se/notice/4390490
[4]: https://identi.ca/adfeno/note/-YJIk_IvTkKcZ3yBOR4cPg
[5]: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/copyfarleft-progresso-ou-retrocesso

At face value I really like the idea of Copyfarleft- but I think this is one of
the areas where compromise really is necessary. It is hard enough getting
businesses to use free software as it is, and if we restrict the realm of
possibility to only worker coops then most businesses (which are traditional
totalitarianisms) will simply use non-free software.

Capitalism should be overthrown, but capitalism cannot be overthrown through
software licenses.

So, in a nutshell- copyfarleft is a nice idea, but counterproductive within the
context of capitalism and not really something worth pursuing. This is from an
anarchist.

(P.S. I have not been getting any posts from the mailing list except those
which were posted there by email, such as adfeno's. Please fix this.)

> According to the copyfarleft movement, the licenses which follow this
movement must allow commercial redistribution [only if the redistributor is a
company or collective "owned by workers", in the other cases, the commercial
redistribution must be forbidden][2].

That is not libre software, and it is not acceptable.

Even if you agree with their political agenda, not everyone does. And if you
can restrict someone else's freedom to further your political agenda, others
can do it, too. Suppose a program is under a license that allows commercial
redistribution "only if the redistributor is not a Jew". The justification
for this would be no worse than the justification of "copyfarleft".