Notices by Dave Lane 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 8

@webmink again, it's a question of the prevailing connotations. A term like 'permissive' or 'viral' or 'exploitable' (my preferred adjective) or 'weak' or 'strong' is generally a matter of perspective: usually either that of a user, or of a copyright holder wanting to cash-out or otherwise exploit their software. @oemb1905 @larsmb @msw @osi

@msw agreed. Nowadays, thanks to Google's and Microsoft's propaganda, 'open source' no longer includes Copyleft licenses. We now have to say Free(/Libre) and Open Source Software to cover the bases. I note that the corporates *never* say "FOSS", they're always OSS. Which shows where their loyalties/interests really lie. They're no friends of mine, for sure.

The willingness most people seem to have to put their trust into (and even idolise/fawn over) corporations shows a lack of insight into the way proprietary technology, corporations, and society work. It's a diabolical mix that's going to be our downfall. For more see https://davelane.nz/megacorps & https://davelane.nz/proprietary

It's why I say we're in a digital Dark Age - most of society, despite being increasingly dependent upon it, lacks this crucial tech literacy. https://davelane.nz/darkage

I just hope that people learn one thing from the Twitter debacle (especially those who consider themselves dependent on it): allowing yourself to become dependent on a tool that is centralised, corporate, for-profit, and proprietary is a perfect way to set yourselves up for a similar fall in future. Look for the same pattern in your other tech dependencies. I suspect most of us will feel some discomfort. That's good. It's also appropriate That's what leads to positive change.

These mega-players can afford to loss-lead (selling access to their new Aotearoa-based cloud below cost, subsidised by the rest of their business in areas of the world where they've already got locked-in users to exploit) until the indigenous cloud companies go out of business. Easy. Sorta like the #Bunning business model vs. mom-and-pop local hardware stores.

@joncounts indeed. It's a confusing message, unfortunately, and will almost certainly scare any #edTech procurement people into the hands of high priced but still proprietary and possibly surveillance capitalist options, because they just don't understand this stuff (esp not #FOSS) and are trying to avoid embarrassing their minister. @abartlet

@wizzwizz4 @joncounts @abartlet That's one option, although most of the decision makers we're trying to influence would be confused. I suppose they'd need to have it explained to them regardless. But, historically, they haven't given a hoot. They prefer to work with the big US multinationals. It's not their money.

@abartlet And yes, it's diabolical. Framed, I suspect, by proprietary tech vendors to cast aspersions at moves in the directions I've been proposing due to the fact that few of the edtech decision makers involved will understand the significance of the various terms being bandied about. Typical.

Look at this: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/481441/what-amazon-wanted-from-new-zealand-s-prime-minister Amazon & Microsoft requesting that Aotearoa NZ's gov't give them special privileges (i.e. a market advantage, even over local providers) because they promise to make a big investment (which, of course, is just TrickleDown Economics, i.e. a myth.). The money they're investing *will not provide long term benefit for Aotearoa or NZers*. It will provide long term benefit for their shareholders. At the expense of local cloud providers.