Can we please agree not to call apples "oranges" just because we like how "oranges" sound, and we also happen to like apples?
These are different kinds of fruit, and calling one using the name for the other is simply misleading.
Same with "anti-capitalist licenses" being called "open-source licenses".
They're not. They're different. The difference matters - if it didn't, there would be no reason not to use open-source licenses!
@bookwyrm is not "open source" (doesn't mean bad!):
https://github.com/bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm/blob/main/LICENSE.md
I am of two minds about "anti-capitalist licenses" that started springing up in random places.
On one hand, I understand why people feel we need them. I, too, take precautions against software I write being (ab)used by Big Tech.
On the other, I feel it might be counter-productive.
AGPL, I believe, provides enough protection against Big Tech using software licensed using them. At the same time, having clear rules of licensing compatibility is powerful -- it allows us to collaborate and build together.
Finally, all "anti-capitalist licenses" I've seen so far use very broad terms that can easily be interpreted in a lot of different ways. They likely do not offer the protection they claim to offer.
In the end it might turn out that by creating a myriad of "anti-capitalist licenses" that are incompatible with each other and with the larger body of FLOSS code, we handicap ourselves - by making it effectively impossible for different projects to be used together to build more complex and more useful systems.
