Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the quantum-source-code? dept.

It's increasingly hard to see how software freedom is present in cases when there's no realistic community access to source code. The barriers these days can come from complex codebases that no single mind can grasp or use of open-but-closed models.

As a consequence, OSI receives more complaints from community members about "open yet closed" than any other topic. Companies of all sizes who loudly tout their love for open source yet withhold source code from non-customers generate the most enquiries of this type. When approached, OSI contacts these companies on behalf of the community but the response is always that they are "within their rights" under the relevant open source licenses and can do what they please.

[...] Interestingly it's common that the companies involved obtained the source code they are monetising under an open source license, while they themselves own the copyrights to a tiny percentage of the code. They can be considered to have enclosed the commons, enjoying the full benefits of open source themselves — and celebrating it — but excluding others from collaboration on the same terms.

Source: Is Open Yet Closed Still OK?


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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:18PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:18PM (#604650)

    The problem is hardware.

    If you don't have access to the hardware, walled gardens of software will always develop.

    Support RISC-V and other such projects. Suffer the crudeness of early FOSH, so that our descendants (biological or otherwise) may enjoy Freedom.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:23PM (#604780)

      Pretty much this here.

      Take a recent one. The Intel ME. Open source right at the root of our pretty much all of our systems. Yet we have 0 access to it. It contains known vulins.

      My laptop is 6 years old. I have 0 chance of getting access to my own hardware without a ton of hacks and workarounds. Even then I have a good chance of bricking my box.

      Someone recently asked why would they do this? How do you think they are cutting features out of chips? They are using the ME to do it. It is how they differentiate ECC and VM switches so they can upsell you on those. Even though the hardware is right there. Same with FM radios and cell phones. The hardware is there pretty much all of them have it. The phone makers turn it off because VZ and ATT ask them to. That way they can upsell you on something else.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:19PM (10 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:19PM (#604651) Homepage Journal

    Cue yet another tedious BSD vs. GPL debate.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:25PM (6 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:25PM (#604655) Journal

      That's old news. The problem today is hardware. Support RISC-V and other such projects.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:54PM (1 child)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:54PM (#604665) Homepage Journal

        Whatchoo talkin bout, Willis? I lurve me some RISC-V. I'll lurve it even more once I can get a competitively priced desktop system using it at 2/3-3/4 AMD's clock speeds. For embedded purposes, IDGAF as long as the data sheets don't suck too much balls and are only moderately false (you know what I'm talking about, embedded devs).

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:30PM (2 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:30PM (#604722) Journal

        That's old news. The problem today is hardware.

        No, it's still current events, not old news.

        I submit these examples:

        GRSecurity forbids redistribution of the Linux Kernel itself(!) along with a minor patchset. That's "Open yet closed" and it's not OK.

        The "Iron" browser claims to be "free and open source," but historically have not made source code available. Then they changed that to making some source code available, but no statement of what previous version it might be from (another way of saying "no you can't have the source code" of the current version). That's "Open yet closed" and it's not OK.

        Rinse and repeat; I believe the problem is actually growing, not shrinking.

        Problems in proprietary hardware are also current events, of course, and very important ones. But I think the "open yet closed" people are working to erode the base of freedom in culture, tradition, mindset, way of thinking that makes the very idea that free/libre hardware is important, possible. It's all of a piece, so to speak.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:36PM (#604747)

          When it comes to software, write a competitor that is sufficiently open.

          The only time you cannot do this is when the hardware is locked down in some fashion; everything comes down to the hardware.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @08:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @08:25AM (#604949)

          His whole thing the past couple years has been telling people how 'open but closed' is acceptable according to his interpretation of the GPL.

          Furthermore people have been flaunting it for up to 15 years now, and there was an accusation made a few months back on the green site that the FSF has tacitly endorsed this by commercially licensing FSF 'open source' code that they were donated all the copyrights on rather than ensuring that companies abusing the GPL released it, or if they insisted on not releasing it, paid out damages and ceased and desisted from future infringements by putting the products.

          As a result of these and similiar issues, as well as the recent glut in MIT/BSD style licensed projects (see llvm/clang, musl, etc) even the Linux ecosystem allows a majority closed-source project to be built, which even if they release source code will not result in build projects which can assemble a complete replacement firmware image or application for products requiring it and which nominally are under the GPL.

          Much like the security of the hardware in computers, the software front is under an attack which if lost will push us into the dark ages of proprietary software of a kind never before seen. Between this, the lack of hardware without signed firmware or untrustworthy management engines, telemetry returning OSes like Windows 10, and the decline in anonymity networks (go show me an anonymity network that hides you well enough to not track your traffic given either passive or active means..), combine to leave us wondering how long until we find the veneer of free will, anonymity, and liberty chipped off to reveal 1984, Rollerball (the original!), A Brave New World, or something even worse peeking through the cracks of our once held society.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:36PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:36PM (#604845) Homepage Journal

        That's old news. The problem today is hardware. Support RISC-V and other such projects.

        Hardware? We don't need no stinkin' hardware! It was always more trouble than it was worth.

        Hardware is soooo 2004, and completely unnecessary.

        We now live in a software defined world. Software defined hardware, software defined radios, software defined networking, software defined software, software defined donuts, software defined toilets and all the rest.

        Need to take a dump? Spin a docker instance -- no hardware required!

        These days it's VMs hosting containers all the way down in the cloud [xkcd.com].

        Please add additional tropes in replies to this comment. Thank you for your software defined attention.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by romlok on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:55PM (2 children)

      by romlok (1241) on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:55PM (#604666)

      Cue yet another tedious BSD vs. GPL debate.

      Probably, in a death-and-taxes sense, but I see the current debate more as a realists vs hippies.
      The hippies are all about peace and love and sharing and cooperation and community.
      The realists see that companies will shit on any community for a buck, so are insisting that all the peace and love in the world is worthless unless you use the law to back you up.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by istartedi on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)

        by istartedi (123) on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:18PM (#604739) Journal

        I see it as rigid ideology vs. flexibility. A copyleft license is based on the idea that all software should be public, as in public health, public education, etc. There are times when this model works, but there are times when it gets bogged down. If the software is copylefted, you can't pull it out of that bog. It's locked in to being developed at the pace of the commons. Under a BSD model, software that is best developed in public will be until it isn't. If people are upset about BSD'd software being closed with the addition of small changes, they are really getting upset about something trivial. By definition, the changes were small and thus easily duplicated either in public or private. If people are upset about BSD'd code being a small part of a large commercial work or having a difficult change made under closed terms, they are also upset about something trivial because most of the work is somebody else's. They have no right to it. They are just ideologues pining for public ownership over all software.

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
        • (Score: 2) by romlok on Monday December 04 2017, @04:44AM

          by romlok (1241) on Monday December 04 2017, @04:44AM (#604907)

          A copyleft license is based on the idea that all software should be public, as in public health, public education, etc.

          Well, that may be the position of Stallman and the FSF, but the existence of copyleft licenses does not in itself imply that all software should be copylefted. A license is a tool, and one should pick what one subjectively considers the best tool for the job at the time.

          If people are upset about BSD'd software being closed...

          If someone gets upset about permissively-licensed software being closed at all, I would put them into the "hippy" category (expecting everyone to "play nice" even when they don't have to).

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:23PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:23PM (#604654)

    The Tragedy of the Commons results from a lack of ownership—there needs to be an owner to control the resources; the Authoritarians say that owner should be centralized (e.g., it should be a "government"), while the Libertarians say that the owner (or owners) should be found through market forces built around the philosophy of individual property rights.

    FOSS is all about well-defined ownership.

    The whole point of FOSS is to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons by defining clearly who owns what, and making sure that such ownership remains clearly defined.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:40PM (#604682)

      It's not the lack of ownership that causes the tragedy of the commons, it's the fact that the consequences are shared rather than apportioned based upon use. If each person knew that they'd be on the hook for a portion of the consequences, it would lead to a different outcome where there was some mindfulness not to use up the resource.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:09PM (#604693)

        The consequences of poor management are apportioned to the owner.

        The consequences of damage are apportioned to the perpetrator.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:38PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:38PM (#604658)

    To me this is MS' Shared Source initiative all over again. Sure, the companies are in their right. The users are also in their right to not care about "their" product. The availability of the source code is just one thing that makes FOSS so great. An open community is just as great. Since about 2008 (financial crisis) things seem to have changed a lot. Lots of code is just dumped on Github, and project sites and dedicated forums to the software seem to be less often set up. FOSS projects seem to be more "individualized".

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:47PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:47PM (#604662)

      If you want a taste of the old way of doing things, check out the web of Linux [kernel] mailing lists; it's a much better way to develop FOSS, because only those capable of good technical thinking can survive participation.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:59PM (5 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:59PM (#604670) Homepage Journal

        Pffft, you can survive Linus just fine. Contrary to what they're teaching in college lately, speech is not violence. All you really have to worry about is if your big-girl panties are clean when you need them.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:05PM (#604671)

          You don't deserve them, and then AC does.

          Invalid form key: ndDrnzR7sv

          Eat a dick, you trash website.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @04:39PM (#604699)

          You don't deserve them, but the AC does.

          Invalid form key: ndDrnzR7sv

          Eat a dick, you trash website.

        • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:04PM (#604709)

          You don't deserve them, but the AC does.

          Invalid form key: ndDrnzR7sv

          Eat a dick, you trash website.

        • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:39PM (#604748)

          You don't deserve them, but the AC does.

          Invalid form key: ndDrnzR7sv
          Invalid form key: PvyQaev5HU

          Eat a dick, you trash website.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:49PM (#605022)

          Pffft, you can survive Linus just fine. Contrary to what they're teaching in college lately, speech is not violence.

          Depends. If you run it through an amplifier to a level that it causes physical damage, then speech can well be considered violence. ;-)

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13PM (8 children)

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13PM (#604674) Homepage Journal

    People seem to be confusing "Open Source" with Free Software. No surprises there; the OSI's definition of "Open Source" was intended to foment this kind of confusion.

    Yes, it's good that when you buy software you get source, which is what the "Open Source" definition requires. But nothing in the definition says you can redistribute. You get to use it, modify it to your needs, and if the company that licenced it to you loses interest, you can still fix bugs yourself if that should become necessary.

    That's what you get with open source. But it's not the same as free software. You are not allowed to redistribute.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:18PM

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:18PM (#604676) Journal

      Kind of. OSS was meant as a transition from proprietary to Free software. There is a lot of idelogical opposition to Free software and those opposing it put their weight into OSS alone to try to slow or stop a full transition.

      Of course lost in all that is the historical fact that prior to the 1980s, it was just called software and even the corporations tended to provide the source.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:37PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:37PM (#604680)

      Yes, it's good that when you buy software you get source, which is what the "Open Source" definition requires. But nothing in the definition says you can redistribute.

      Huh? Free redistribution is the very first criterion in the Open Source Definition. The whole thing is almost exactly the same text as the Debian Free Software Guidelines (since it was originally adapted from that).

      • (Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:50PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:50PM (#604686)

        It shouldn't be. And this is why nobody respects the free software people.

        Open source is about having access to the source to look at and patch. It does not and should not include a requirement about redistributing those changes and how that should be handled. This is something that the extremists use as a wedge. It's great if you can release those modifications or take the software and extend it in different ways, but it's ideological nonsense to claim that the source isn't open because you're not allowed to redistribute it.

        And BTW, citing Debian is not doing you any favors, those are the same assholes that have ice weasel because they didn't think they needed to respect Firefox's generous licensing policy with respect to trademarks. A very anti-user stance to take. If it's called Fx, then it should be Fx.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:19PM (#604717) Journal

          You are either meticulously trolling at a very high level, or very, very misinformed; you're so good, I can't tell which.

          Open source is about having access to the source to look at and patch. It does not and should not include a requirement about redistributing those changes and how that should be handled.

          Contrast that with the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] simple, clear requirement to redistribute those changes and how that should be handled:

          The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.

          "must include source code", "must allow distribution in source code... form", "there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code", pretty simple requirements. Someone who gets free software and then doesn't publish their changes is not publishing "Open Source" software. Example: Microsoft used BSD's TCP/IP code in their "Windows" product; BSD's code was free and open source software, but Windows isn't, not even if you buy a license to look at the proprietary source (because of the source code distribution requirement above). Frankly, if someone claims otherwise, they're not speaking reasonably nor rationally.

          it's ideological nonsense to claim that the source isn't open because you're not allowed to redistribute it.

          No, such a claim would simply mean that you (1) have seen the official Open Source Definition, and (2) can read.

          Debian... are the same assholes that have ice weasel because they didn't think they needed to respect Firefox's generous licensing policy with respect to trademarks.... If it's called Fx, then it should be Fx.

          A few minor corrections here.

          • Debian distributes Firefox.
          • Debian originally distributed Firefox, but Mozilla complained and said they couldn't call it Firefox if it had Debian graphic or security patches.
          • Debian negotiated for quite a while before agreeing to not call it Firefox.
          • Calling it something else not only wasn't Debian's idea but cost them a lot of needless grief.
          • Eventually the Mozilla folks said (paraphrasing): "Yeah, sorry, you're right; we were being total jerks, nevermind."
          • At which point the Debian folks kind of rolled their eyes and called it Firefox again.
          • This is openly documented in Debian bug #815006 [debian.org].

          And this is why nobody respects the free software people.

          Us "free software people" don't get a lot of respect, but this probably isn't why.

          • (Score: 1) by petecox on Sunday December 03 2017, @10:43PM

            by petecox (3228) on Sunday December 03 2017, @10:43PM (#604826)

            Iceweasel is a much prettier name! :)

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:44AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:44AM (#604874)

            First of all, you're using a tautology here. Open source means that you can see and modify the code, adding a redistribution requirement makes little sense. Yes, we should, but what do you call code then that is available for looking at, but is only distributed through one source?

            Secondly, same deal there, it's an ideological argument, referencing ideologues doesn't really make it easier to ignore that it's an ideological argument to have. There are tons of opensource licenses out there with varying degrees of openness to them.

            Calling Fx something else was completely their call. They could have just used the source that was provided and the licensing and gotten to use the mark, but they chose not to. Choosing to name it Ice Weasel was a dickish move that deserves to be called out.

            And yes, this kind of thing is precisely why you guys don't get respect. From the asinine requirements for something to be "free" software to requiring distribution rights in order for something to be open. If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps not having crappy code and crappy licenses would help.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @04:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @04:52AM (#604909)

              If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps learn the meaning of words before you use them. If you're looking for a meaningful distinction between "open source software" and "free software", as used by the technically-literate population of the planet, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong drainpipe.
              The phrases you are looking for, to describe the kind of software you're talking about, are "shared source" or "source available".

    • (Score: 1) by steveg on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:41PM

      by steveg (778) on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:41PM (#606889)

      Have you actually looked at OSI's Open Source Definition?

      Provision 2 specifically requires redistribution.

      "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:45PM (#604727)

    If you distribute the object code, you have to provide a reasonable way to get the open source and often also your stuff that links to it.
    But if you use open source in house and do not distribute the program, then you don't.
    The only case that would required you to distribute source to the general public would be if the general public actually had a legit copy of the object code.
    The Linux kernel is probably the most widely distributed code, but even it is not used by the general public (IE everybody).

    A license violation is when folks are not willing to provide source for their stuff that links.
    Folks monetize this by creating eco systems which uses a mix of proprietary and open code, without linking.
    The result is more and better supported open stuff operating under a balanced set of rules.
    To say that the rules are unfair because they do not make everything open ignores the economics necessary to provide most open stuff in the first place.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:38PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:38PM (#604771)

    It is patently obvious GRSecurity can distribute source only with the binaries they sell as part of a support contract. It is equally obvious the clause in said contract forbidding redistribution is invalid on its face in the case of GPL licensed code. It is also obvious they can get away with it because nobody can raise the vast sum required to fight it out in court to get to that obvious conclusion.

    This is the problem with allowing Jewish Law to replace the traditional Western concepts. Courts no longer even claim to be interested in the speedy trials our American Constitution enshrined as a basic Right, they increasingly reject the very concept of Justice as a goal. All they care about is the "legal process" and it is entirely self absorbed on endlessly arguing ever more inane notions of "legality". Once you allow a court to get away with openly splitting "legal" away from "Just" you have lost. The big red flag was allowing courts to rule facts out of order, that was the obvious sign that the courts had declared lawfare a higher goal than seeking the Truth. Now it all about lawbooks and precedent piled so high and so contradictory that nobody can possibly predict what a court will do, which paradoxically makes them more powerful. Guess who wins? The lawyers. (hint: almost all judges are also lawyers.) That is all one really need notice, who win and who loses.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:07PM (#604836)

    Yes, it has became too common with corportations taking over and doing whatever they want to control without any colaboration, to get more control or to save resources in the short term.

    Allwinner doesn't care about the GPL, all efforts are community based. And so do many other ARM business, with luck you can get a raw dump of source, without much help of how to reproduce the binaries, or even with binaries blobs. If you have read the GPL you know the source must include the ways to rebuild and that distribution with linked binaries is no-no.

    GTK has become a "you will run at the pace we say". Fuck you long term stable API, every two years, new one. Warranty of constant change. https://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2016/06/13/gtk-4-0-is-not-gtk-4/ [gnome.org] (The comments are great... and closed *rolleyes* "lalalala, we gnome can't hear you!")

    The other day a guy told me Chrome/Chromium was 12GB of code, so trying to use it for internal things or new products was impossible, complexity too high so only the creator benefits. Because forking and supporting such a big mess is not viable for small companies or when not the main target. It's all or nothing.

    It seems to be the plan, create big messes so you lock everyone into them, and not contribute back even if you got all for free and gratis, and worse, even if contributing back and playing nice with others will save you time long term (drivers in upstream kernel, eg). Becase such actions are sharing the control.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:06AM (#604979)

      So instead of GTK, use Qt. Stable API, even stable ABI. What more do you want?

(1)