Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday December 26 2017, @07:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the interesting-viewpoints dept.

Joseph Graham has written a very short blog post about software freedom and the direction we might take to achieve it.

The free software movement, founded in the 80s by Richard Stallman and supported by the Free Software Foundations 1, 2, 3, 4, preaches that we need software that gives us access to the code and the copyright permissions to study, modify and redistribute. While I feel this is entirely true, I think it's not the best way to explain Free Software to people.

I think the problem we have is better explained more like this:

"Computer technology is complicated and new. Education about computers is extremely poor among all age groups. Technology companies have taken advantage of this lack of education to brainwash people into accepting absurd abuses of their rights."

Source : The Free Software movement is Barking up the wrong tree


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:25PM (18 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:25PM (#614418) Homepage Journal

    Some claim the the Linux kernel is free software because it has the gpl license. It's not: Linus has made clear that it is open source

    It's not the license that counts but the reason the license was chosen. Richard confirms this

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:48PM (#614431)

    Linux is Free Software because it respects the users' four freedoms. The difference between a Free Software advocate and an Open Source advocate, however, is that Free Software advocates necessarily maintain that it is unethical for software to not respect users' freedoms.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Ramze on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:52PM (5 children)

    by Ramze (6029) on Tuesday December 26 2017, @08:52PM (#614435)

    No. The license determines what one can do with the software code, thus the license is what one uses to make that determination. The reason the license was chosen makes no difference whatsoever.

    RMS likes "free software" as in GPL2, GPL3 because the user can see the code, modify the code, and be held to an agreement to distribute any changes of the code along with the software as well as binding the changed code to the original license. RMS doesn't care about just being able to see code (which is what open source is). Nor does he care about being able to see and change the code without having to distribute the changes (as in BSD and other licenses). RMS is perfectly fine with people selling software as long as the software is under the GPL so that users are free to use it according to the GPL.

    Linus only cares about GPL2 code -- his take is that he wants to get changes back, but he doesn't care about the "free software" philosophy of RMS which has gone even further with the GPL3 on restricting usage. So, Linus talks about "open source" -- really meaning GPL2 licensed code and RMS talks about "free software" meaning a whole philosophy regarding computers and code that happens to be reflected in the GPL... which to his mind is now on GPL3... but, Linux will never move the linux kernel to GPL3, so RMS is stuck with HURD or modifying a BSD kernel and releasing it under GPL3.

    There are a lot of open source licenses, of course... but even Microsoft refers to a lot of their software as "open source" even though they only let certain people look at it, don't let them make any changes, and would sue them if they ever distributed it. There's no good definition of "open source" which is why RMS hates the term. Just being able to view the source isn't sufficient to have the freedom to do something with it, thus "free software" is the term he chooses for what he proposes.

    But, at the end of the day, it's the license that binds one legally for what they can do with the code, not the intent of the author.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:35PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:35PM (#614496)

      Microsoft refers to a lot of their software as "open source"

      The correct term is "open core".
      In order to run their "open" stuff, you will need to pay M$ for -something-.
      Typically, that's a Windoze license at a minimum.

      ...and any time you go to get their "open" stuff, take note of the PATENTS.TXT file that comes with that.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:55AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:55AM (#614616)

        The correct term is "open core".

        No.
        "Open core" refers to software whose core functionality is open source, but which also has proprietary additions available. Often such a product is mostly useless for its intended task without the proprietary parts.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:58AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:58AM (#614638)

          We're very close to agreeing.
          You say "available"; I say "mandatory".

          Without the payware, you can look at the code all you want but it won't be able to actually do anything useful for you.
          It's the reason that a new term needed to be invented.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:07PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:07PM (#614766) Journal

      There's no good definition of "open source" which is why RMS hates the term.

      There is one pretty widely known definition that I've never seen or heard anyone dispute:
      https://opensource.org/osd [opensource.org]

      even Microsoft refers to a lot of their software as "open source" even though they only let certain people look at it, don't let them make any changes, and would sue them if they ever distributed it.

      They do have some open source code, yes. And anyone is free to view it and fork it and do what they want with it. The few I checked were released under MIT and BSD licenses, both of which are specifically named as meeting the above definition.
      https://github.com/Microsoft [github.com]

      I can't find anything that they call "open source" that is restricted like what you describe. In fact, Microsoft representatives have stated in interviews that "open source is more than just releasing the source code", so they definitely know that just releasing source code snippets to a partner under NDA does not at all qualify. Maybe some sales monkey is doing that, but that's definitely not an official corporate statement as far as I can tell.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:13PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:13PM (#614872) Homepage
      > No. The license determines what one can do with the software code,

      No. The licence determines if and how you may distribute the code. It grants additional rights that you wouldn't otherwise have because of copyright (which is still upheld, it doesn't just evaporate).

      > thus the license is what one uses to make that determination. The reason the license was chosen makes no difference whatsoever.

      That's correct.

      > Linus only cares about GPL2 code

      The bottom line is that he doesn't care about GPL3, plus the impossibility to change stone soup this far down the line anyway.

      > his take is that he wants to get changes back

      He *doesn't* particularly want to get changes back. Idiots can change shit all they want, and *he doesn't want it*. He only wants well-maintained working code back. (I'm an ex kernel dev.)
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:12PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:12PM (#614448)

    Although Linux is under the GPL, because Linus does not enforce it, in practice the kernel may as well be under the BSD license, or public domain.

    First he didn't care about binary drivers, which may have been good at the beginning to help gain acceptance of the kernel, but today it's counterproductive as even GPU manufacturers now release their drivers under GPL, yet phone manufacturers are free to lock away their kernel drivers, so that no one can update their phones. Though the GPL2 doesn't have anti-tivoization rules, and so there's be no legal recourse against things like locked bootloaders, with those problems circumvented there's still no way to update the kernel. And today, by volume, there are more Linux kernels on phones than anywhere else.

    Then he doesn't bother to enforce the GPL against willful and flagrant violations such as GRSecurity https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ [perens.com]. Sure, he said you shouldn't use it, but that's not the same as requiring them to fulfill their obligations under the GPL.

    Making matters worse is that he chose GPL2 only, not GPL3, so there will never be anti-tivoization or patent protection for the Linux kernel, until the end of time. I remember at the time I heard that it was because he didn't want to risk the license terms changing without knowing what would be happening in the future, but since he doesn't enforce the license anyway, what does it matter?

    I know it's not popular to criticize Linus and his technical and leadership abilities are excellent, but in the area of licensing, he rarely gets it right. GPL2 was simply a lucky choice, and everything since then has been a mistake.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:44PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:44PM (#614502)

      At the time when much of the kernel was developed, GPLv3 didn't exist.
      In order to change to GPLv3, he would have to get the consent of EVERYONE who contributed code--or rewrite that code.

      Stallman is an ideolog.
      Torvalds is a pragmatist.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:48PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:48PM (#614504)

        Or he could have done what almost everyone writing GPL software did (and still does), which is license under GPL 2 or newer. Instead he chose GPL 2 only.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @12:08AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @12:08AM (#614508)

          I have no idea what you're on about.
          I don't think you do either.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:26AM (#614557)

            I understand quite well. As for you, I've already explained it. If you can't figure it out from that, you aren't trying.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:34AM (4 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:34AM (#614539)

          One of the problems with "or newer" licensing is that you have no control over what that might be. There's absolutely nothing stopping Stallman (or whoever it is that has the authority to update the GPL) from releasing GPL v666, aka "everything belongs to me now and I can do whatever I want with it" edition, and instantly gaining unrestricted proprietary-compatible license to *everything* ever released under "GPL2 or later". Even if you trust the current stewards, such stewardship can and does change radically over time.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:45AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:45AM (#614562)

            There is that risk, but it's pretty minor in practice. First, the FSF is about as trustworthy as you can get. But even if they turn evil at some point, it's not really a big problem for a living project. Suppose GPL3 is the last good version, and GPL4 is evil. You could just license all new code under GPL3 only. The new code can be used with the old code under GPL3. The old code could be used under the new GPL4, but the earlier versions under GPL3 wouldn't go away, so there's no risk of that code being rendered unusable somehow. And the worst case scenario, that the code might be absorbed into proprietary projects, has already happened. So I don't think there's even a theoretical benefit to GPL2 only.

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:30AM

              by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:30AM (#614591)

              Yes, the risk is not of code being locked up, but of code appropriation.

              And it is true that there are currently outstanding cases of illegal code appropriation - but unlike the case of "evil GPL" the distribution of such programs are in fact ongoing crimes, and it is almost certain that the source for the illegally derived programs will be released if anyone with standing cares to take the issue to court. The GPL is after all extremely well tested at this point, and the standard penalties for copyright infringement extremely high. Offhand I can't think of a single example of a person or organization choosing to pay the penalties and discontinue their product rather than releasing the source.

          • (Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:08AM (1 child)

            by romlok (1241) on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:08AM (#614619)

            One of the problems with "or newer" licensing is that you have no control over what that might be. There's absolutely nothing stopping Stallman (or whoever it is that has the authority to update the GPL) from releasing GPL v666, aka "everything belongs to me now and I can do whatever I want with it" edition, and instantly gaining unrestricted proprietary-compatible license to *everything* ever released under "GPL2 or later". Even if you trust the current stewards, such stewardship can and does change radically over time.

            Actually, this is not true in this case.
            The "or later" clause specifies that the version of the license chosen must be "published by the Free Software Foundation", and the articles of incorporation (or whatever the non-profit equivalent is) for the FSF was specifically crafted with the "evil replicant" problem in mind. That is; if every member of the FSF board was replaced by 90s-Microsoft evil replicants, they would still be legally compelled to continue the stated mission supporting software freedom.

            • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:20PM

              by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:20PM (#614769)

              Actually, this is not true in this case.
              The "or later" clause specifies that the version of the license chosen must be "published by the Free Software Foundation", and the articles of incorporation (or whatever the non-profit equivalent is) for the FSF was specifically crafted with the "evil replicant" problem in mind. That is; if every member of the FSF board was replaced by 90s-Microsoft evil replicants, they would still be legally compelled to continue the stated mission supporting software freedom.

              Actually it is more subtle than that, and less clear cut.

              The GPL itself expressly commits to new versions being "similar in spirit" to current, but as GPLv3 showed, even "similar in spirit" is a matter of opinion, and what you are buying if you use "or later" is a license similar in spirit in the opinion of the FSF. I still do not understand, for instance, why the anti-tivo clause only applies to devices used by "consumers" and not business/professional users - it seems such a license can only be "similar in spirit" for one set of users (either anti-tivo was in the spirit of GPL before or it wasn't, it can't be both).

              Unfortunately "similar in spirit" also does not mean "compatible with previous versions" or "compatible with the same other software licences you were using" or "compatible with the terms of the contracts you have with your customers" (which is what caused BSD to limit to only using GPLv2 versions pf GCC etc., and switch to Clang/LLVM, allegedly) or...

              Linus saw these sort of problems coming and avoided them, Linux may end up with other problems as a result, but it hasn't so far (AFAICS).

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:15PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday December 27 2017, @09:15PM (#614874) Homepage
          Because "or newer" is insanity. GPL5 could include a clause about sacrificing your first born.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves