Do we need to rethink what free software is? • Hacker News Board

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#91

Post by jraph » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #87

jraph wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is calling for the FSF to think about addressing a potential unwanted fragmentation of the free software community over opinions on ethical uses of software and solutions based on restriction from licenses.

The FSF has never viewed anyone who wants exceptions to copyleft as being part of their community to begin with. Even something simple like the JSON license is something that the FSF sees as fundamentally incompatible with their values. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:JSON

Yep, and I remember Stallman saying that these exceptions are not desirable in a talk.

Matthew Garrett certainly knows it and certainly wants that something is done on the matter. Which could be good. However, the title implies a possible evolution of the definition of free software, but I just can't see that as conceivable.

That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1, breaking many demonstrations in the process ⸮

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#92

Post by geofft » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #71

geofft wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone can add ethical stipulations to the license of their choice but the result is no longer a free software license. Yes, of course. The question is whether we want to change that. Of course our current understanding of Free Software makes such a license outside its bounds. Of course the Four Freedoms and the OSD both prevent restrictions on use. But do the Four Freedoms and the OSD accurately capture what we re…

If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community. I highlighted right above how one of the desired use cases of this proposed "ethical" licensing model is to restrict a fundamental human right of the users of the software. In the best case, what we are talking about is not free software. In the worst c…

> If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community.

Arguing that free software as conventionally defined is better than what is being proposed is 100% within the mission of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF tells you how bad Windows is, even though Windows isn't free software. The FSF has a list of popular non-free licenses and tells you why they aren't free.

Arguing that members of the free software community who are interested in other licenses should continue to write free software - and why - is also firmly within the mission of the FSF. If they have concerns over free software, responding to those concerns in good faith is the job of the FSF. I'm no less of a member of the free software community simply because I write proprietary code from 9 to 5 on weekdays. (If I were, there would be very little free software community, and it would be mostly driven by well-funded corporations and not by individuals.)

Also, I'm of the opinion that you can accomplish the same goals by means other than licenses (e.g., better rules on who can participate in development), and I'm sympathetic to the goals. Shouldn't the Free Software Foundation be saying, if you want to achieve these goals, here is concretely how you can accomplish them using free software? If people are saying "free software cannot do X, we must abandon free software to do X," shouldn't it be an FSF priority to demonstrate that you can do X with free software?

> In the worst case, there may be actors involved in these discussions hoping to use outrage mobs to destabilize the free software movement, in particular application code still licensed under GPLv2.

I think if we're going to spin conspiracy theories, let's talk more about whether the NSA supported Richard Stallman as the spokesperson of the free software movement to ensure that it never gained mainstream acceptance by making sure the popular image of free software was some weirdo with bad personal hygiene, and how the community failure to get rid of him played right into government interests for decades. Sounds equally plausible.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#93

Post by csande17 » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

rmilejczz wrote: post #60

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL is based around a well-defined set of ethics that centers around giving the user complete freedom to use and modify the software. This is necessary for software to be considered free. It's certainly possible to restrict usage based around a moral code. Look at the JSON License: https://www.json.org/license.html > The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. So, yes, it would be possible to restrict software…

>The GPL is based around a well-defined set of ethics that centers around giving the user complete freedom to use and modify the software I take issue with this. First of all, this “well-defined” qualifier is ironically poorly defined. What does that mean? It either is or is not derived from some principle or set of principles; it is ultimately an example of ethics being imposed as a restriction. Secondly, you don’t…

When people say the GPL ensures freedom for the "user", they mean the end-user. Under the GPL, the end-user can always view and modify the source code of the software they use however they want.

Distributors of software, on the other hand, are prohibited from licensing GPL-derived software in a way that restricts end-user freedom. (And they're also prohibited from licensing GPL-software in a way that allows others to license it in a way that restricts end-user freedom, which is why you can't incorporate GPL code into an Apache-licensed project.)

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#94

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

craigsmansion wrote: post #77

Absent is any mention of the Affero GPL. And that's the problem. Who is trustworthy? > "The priority of the board right now should be to restructure itself to ensure that it can legitimately claim to represent the community" Who is this appeal to, and what is it for? Is it genuine or an attempt, in the current upheaval, to have the board restructured to make it less effective? > "and play the leadership role it's bee…

Ethics evolve, and shouldn't be pinned to a person.

BSD licensed software is fine as well, nobody would say it is unethical.

In the same way the GPL3 came about due to external circumstances, other forms of licensing should be able to be considered free (like the AGPL or maybe others) with regards to the current landscape and circumstances.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#95

Post by amenod » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

jraph wrote: post #85

notus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as free.

To answer your question: probably any software following the widely accepted, opinion-free definition of "free software". Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. You are free not to like some free software licenses though.

> Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software.

Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions.

There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to paint issues black and white, they really are not. Which freedoms a particular user cares about is not at all given. For myself, I would gladly use Commons Clause software, because if I make money off software then it's only fair that I pay commercial license for it - after all, it's in my interest that the software is actively developed and maintained. And your questions are really all I care about, and this clause conforms to them.

But I think in the end it is up to each user to decide which set of freedoms they care about to the point of not using non-conforming software. The cynic in me would say that most users care only about free (as in beer) - at least judging by Android and plethora of its free-of-cost apps.

EDIT: I am not arguing that Commons Clause & co. should be accepted under the "free license" term - for better or worse, this term has some widely accepted definition that is not compatible with them. Maybe a new term, like "hybrid licenses" is needed? We'll see.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#96

Post by carapace » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

notus wrote: post #80

Ace17 wrote: post #2

Feel free to create the "moral/ethical software" movement, but please don't touch the current definition of free software. People already have a hard time understanding what free software exactly is/requires/provides. Changing the definition at this point would only create confusion, especially if the new one is even more ethically grounded.

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as free.

GPL -> "Free"

MIT or BSD -> "Open"

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#97

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #89

daenz wrote: post #57

I'm the author of some popular open source software, but I don't have any illusions about the relative ease of building my software. This author sounds like they are trying throw their weight around, but I'm not sure they realize how much software is easily reproducible, given the right incentives, with nothing more than a spec. Open source is a convenience, and that's why people use it. Pretending that you can have…

If you are making a new missile system and all of the free (as in beer) software you want says you can't use it to kill people, then you suddenly have to pay a lot more money to make your missile system. That seems like a good thing to me. I don't see how you could claim that it wouldn't be influencial if this became standard practice.

The question is whether it could ever become standard practice, or whether "no-killing-people" software would inevitably just become a hobby ecosystem that nobody seriously considers running a business with.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#98

Post by c-smile » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

> Do we need to rethink what free software is?

Yes we do need to do that.

Initial idea of FOSS was more about personal use of OS applications, so at times when "you can share your code with your neighbour without your neighbour being able to deny the same freedom to others".

But that model simply does not work (or at least is not fair) in cases when OS is used in paid services. And 90% of OS code now is in the form that is suitable only for services. And that is the problem - FOSS is not motivating fair use of our code. Sometimes - quite opposite.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#99

Post by kick » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

c-smile wrote: post #98

> Do we need to rethink what free software is? Yes we do need to do that. Initial idea of FOSS was more about personal use of OS applications, so at times when "you can share your code with your neighbour without your neighbour being able to deny the same freedom to others". But that model simply does not work (or at least is not fair) in cases when OS is used in paid services. And 90% of OS code now is in the form t…

That is not true. Google "free software four freedoms".

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#100

Post by carapace » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

Take it to the logical limit: either we have some sort of techno-utopia al la Star Trek -or- we have a world of Haves and Have-nots, Morlocks and Eloi, Techno-N. Korea. Unless Nature kicks our asses whatever we set up today will get amplified by technology one way or another.

Most people today can't even control their television (they can select what to watch, but not decide not to be spied on by their own tv. This is on the frontpage right now: "Watching You Watch: The Tracking Ecosystem of Over-the-Top TV Streaming Devices" [pdf] (princeton.edu) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21100404 )

These are social/political issues. I think the FSF here is overwhelmed by a tidal wave.