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This discussion has been archived.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: 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]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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