As usual, the people are the important thing. Who could've guessed? :3
I've done a lot of activism for software freedom, over the years. At first it was purely for software freedom and related topics, (such as security, autonomy and privacy) but eventually this has evolved into something more holistic. I believe that the software I use should be held to higher ethical standards than only being free software.
My activism used to focus on strong copyleft licenses, these are licenses which require that the project stay free; that no-one can take the project and make it proprietary. This has taken a backseat, as I now believe that there is something more important than license: community. The community around a software project is what dictates the values of the project. A strong copyleft license does still signal that the project cares about software freedom, but, by itself it is not enough.
Copyright has always been a system that upholds the hegemony of the powerful, it enriches corporations at the expense of the working class. Copyleft licenses do use copyright against them, but can only do so much. We are using an abusive system against itself, which is not sustainable or desirable in the long term.
Software being free also states nothing about other ethical values of the project, such as whether it is inclusive and whether it is run by its own community, or by a corporation. It also states nothing about whether the project endorses extractive technologies such as generative models.
As an example of a project which is technically free software, but does not value software freedom at all, consider an AGPL-3.0 project that is dual-licensed under a commercial license and forces a contributor license agreement on its contributors. This project is not community-run at all and is only free software in a narrow sense of the word.
This is why I don't care as much anymore about a project being under a copyleft free software license or a non-copyleft free software license. It is still true that the software being available under a strong copyleft license sends a signal that the project cares about software freedom, but it is not a guarantee.
So, if the license is not the (only) thing we need to look at, what do we also need to look at? This depends on your own priorities, of course, but there are a few things I could mention:
- Does the project have an inclusive code of conduct?
- Does the code of conduct or contribution policy ban generative models?
- Is the project completely in the hands of a corporation?
- Is there a contributor license agreement?
- Does it endorse proprietary and/or centralized platforms such as Discord and GitHub?
- What are the values of the lead developers of the project? Do they care about ethics in software?
Try to join the communities of free software projects you use and care about, eventually maybe even try to contribute. Even if you can't code, there are many other tasks that need to be done: community management, documentation, artwork, triage, outreach, and many other tasks. In the end, it's the community around a project that shapes its values, so be a part of that community and push against anything unethical. Speak up, if you can. For every person speaking up, there will be many that can't or won't speak up; be their voice.
Getting together to build software is important. Like stated before, this can mean joining an existing project, but it can also mean creating a new one. It can also mean joining or creating a software cooperative. These are communities of people that develop software together. One community can span multiple projects and we can all help one-another out. Examples include The Starlight Network and Polyphony.
Meow. :333