The [free software definition](https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and the [open source definition](https://opensource.org/docs/osd) are useful criteria for evaluating copyright licenses for code, but an effective political movement cannot be so narrowly focused on legalistic and binary judgements of copyright licenses to judge whether certain software aligns with our goals.
We believe the focus of the communal software movement should be on the practical impacts that the use of software has on humans and the universe we inhabit.
The scope of this extends beyond humans and must consider the [environment around us](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952).
Moreover, we believe it is counterproductive to have a small self-appointed group of privilged men determine what our movement's terminology, goals, and tactics are.
Any communal software project that receives funding from a for-profit enterprise must institute governance structures which prioritize community interests over profit in case there is a conflict between the two.
We oppose business models which are in conflict with community interests such as ["open core"](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/why-i-forked-my-own-project-and-my-own-company-31c3/)/[proprietary relicensing](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/).
Similarly, we are opposed to authoritarian and hierarchical governance structures of software projects such as "benevolent dictators for life".