<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>obserbattoir</title>
    <link>https://blog.switchcraft.club/</link>
    <description>mostly thoughts, never prayers</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 09:54:54 +0000</pubDate>
    <item>
      <title>Let&#39;s remember now and then that so-called FOSS licences are derived from an...</title>
      <link>https://blog.switchcraft.club/lets-remember-now-and-then-that-so-called-foss-licences-are-derived-from-an</link>
      <description>&lt;![CDATA[Let&#39;s remember now and then that so-called FOSS licences are derived from an interpretation of american jurisprudence on copyright. These licences uphold intellectual property as a legitimate legal form. In fact they need to do so to function at all.&#xA;&#xA;This is not the same as public domain ownership. FOSS doesn&#39;t automatically result in an expansion of the commons. FOSS licences say nothing about the governance of objects either, a FOSS object is not inherently more democratic just because it is FOSS.&#xA;&#xA;So it seems a bit odd to me to state that &#34;A public cloud for the EU, in the public interest and with European values&#34; must be built with FOSS licences. It&#39;s unclear to me how it follows from a FOSS license that the resulting product will have public interests at heart. This theory of change is incomplete.&#xA;&#xA;Let&#39;s consider for a moment that much of &#34;the american cloud&#34;, much criticized these days, is also built with FOSS.&#xA;&#xA;Trying to emancipate from one techbro&#39;s ecosystem by moving to another techbro&#39;s ecosystem is not what real change looks like.]]&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#39;s remember now and then that so-called FOSS licences are derived from an interpretation of american jurisprudence on copyright. These licences uphold intellectual property as a legitimate legal form. In fact they need to do so to function at all.</p>

<p>This is not the same as public domain ownership. FOSS doesn&#39;t automatically result in an expansion of the commons. FOSS licences say nothing about the governance of objects either, a FOSS object is not inherently more democratic just because it is FOSS.</p>

<p>So it seems a bit odd to me to state that “A public cloud for the EU, in the public interest and with European values” must be built with FOSS licences. It&#39;s unclear to me how it follows from a FOSS license that the resulting product will have public interests at heart. This theory of change is incomplete.</p>

<p>Let&#39;s consider for a moment that much of “the american cloud”, much criticized these days, is also built with FOSS.</p>

<p>Trying to emancipate from one techbro&#39;s ecosystem by moving to another techbro&#39;s ecosystem is not what real change looks like.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <guid>https://blog.switchcraft.club/lets-remember-now-and-then-that-so-called-foss-licences-are-derived-from-an</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2025 22:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>