Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scapegoating free software’s failures

writing.kemitchell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#71

Post by kemitchell »

zozbot234 wrote: post #48
simonh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FSF is not 'attacking' such licenses, they're just arguing that they aren't free libre software licenses. It's the SSPL people and others, by trying to co-opt the free and Libre software movement by claim their licenses are something they are not, which are mounting the assault. And let's be clear it is a pernicious, aggressive and deliberate attack threatening, and in some cases knowingly intended to fundamental…

And the FSF has even come up with their own license for network services, namely the AGPL - that is a full free-software license, since compared to the GPL it only clarifies requirements around public performance of the covered work (which unlike mere "use" of the software, is something that copyright law expressly grants as an exclusive right of the copyright holder!)

SSPL was a direct response to perceived loopholes and inadequacies in AGPL. I’ve written about that here: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h...

Most people never get that far, because they write the license off as an attack on principles. The debate about the substance didn’t really get to happen.

As for public performance, I’m not aware of any case law to suggest that the public performance right applies to software as you suggest. And I’ve never seen FSF or independent legal counsel argue that GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are functionally equivalent due to background law.

The FSF theorists I’ve read describe AGPL as “synthesizing” a public performance right for software that doesn’t otherwise exist under current copyright law. They do so out of two existing exclusive rights: the right to prepare derivative works (making changes or building larger programs) and the right to reproduce in copies (incidental to use).

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#72

Post by twic »

mikekchar wrote: post #38
phkahler wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two point he made that I've often wondered about. 1) why wasn't AGPL used for GPLv3? 2) why should companies be able to keep proprietary version from being distributed? The second one I can see being possible by having employees agree not to exercise their GPL redistribution rights as a condition of employment. Still it seems like a large group of companies could all agree to that kind of thing to effectively take a…

> 1) why wasn't AGPL used for GPLv3? I don't know the actual reason, but these are my opinions. First, I seem to remember at the time the GPLv3 was being worked on there was some push to include the language from the AGPL. I believe (though I could be mistaken -- it was a long time ago) that the wording in AGPL was considered to be a bit ambiguous. There was some worry that the definitions of "convey" and/or "propoga…

> I actually don't think SaaS is a good way to sell services. It's rent seeking.

Big yikes. That is a really intriguing idea.

Rent-seeking to me means that the seeker has exclusive control over some asset that they did not themselves create, and uses that to extract rent from people who want access to it.

Amazon selling free software SaaS doesn't seem like rent-seeking, because Amazon don't have exclusive control over anything. They just offer better value than their competitors, for various reasons.

MongoDB selling SSPL'd SaaS doesn't seem like rent-seeking, because they invested in creating the software, and they aren't stopping anyone else from selling it as SaaS either, just requiring them to do so on a sort of level playing field.

Even Oracle selling proprietary SaaS doesn't seem like rent-seeking, because they invested in creating the software.

What am i missing?

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#73

Post by hyperpape »

belorn wrote: post #64
kemitchell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. That's true of GPL-style copyleft, because it was designed quite intentionally to be a network-effect-leaden singleton. We say "GPL-compatible", but it's more accurate to say "GPL-submissive". The difference was felt very directly by the Eclipse folks in the run up to EPLv2. But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity lic…

It is always useful to fall back to basic when ever people try to redefine copyleft or GPL. A copyright license is a list of complex permissions. Nothing more, nothing less. If you have a two set of permissions, compatibility is the logical conclusions of finding intersection and see which actions are permitted in both set. Set theory do not have submissive and dominant sets. The intersection is always the elements w…

Set theory doesn’t, but this isn’t pure set theory, it’s a social process (perhaps it’s game theory, though I don’t think you have to really use math to get the point ). The GPL came first, so it effectively forces others to submit or to go it alone.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#74

Post by kemitchell »

purpleidea wrote: post #44

Despite all the points the author tries to make, he forgets to mention the most important one: license proliferation is not a positive thing for people who care about software freedom. He's responsible for proliferating, and I hope it stops. Lack of innovation in licensing isn't the problem. Corporate greed is.

The licenses I’ve contributed to don’t rehash old licenses. They represent new choices. Some patch holes in old forms. Some break new ground.

If “license proliferation” means something even stricter, like “no new licenses, even if they do new things”, there’s no good argument for it as a policy, other than protecting those currently “winning” who fear change. Database proliferation is not killing software. Nor is framework proliferation or markup language proliferation or programming language proliferation.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#75

Post by kemitchell »

naniwaduni wrote: post #49
kemitchell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. That's true of GPL-style copyleft, because it was designed quite intentionally to be a network-effect-leaden singleton. We say "GPL-compatible", but it's more accurate to say "GPL-submissive". The difference was felt very directly by the Eclipse folks in the run up to EPLv2. But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity lic…

> But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity license that I mention in the blog post takes a different tack. But they do. "or another license that allows everything this license does" sounds less restrictive at a glance, in that on the surface it permits additions to be separately licensed, but its effect is the same: no license with more stipulations is acceptable, and by sym…

> But they cannot be weaker copyleft terms.

Why not? What about, say, the API Copyleft License, which reads very much like Parity, but permits building closed applications? https://apicopyleft.com/

That license allows everything Parity does, plus one more: creating closed applications.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#76

Post by kemitchell »

belorn wrote: post #64
kemitchell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. That's true of GPL-style copyleft, because it was designed quite intentionally to be a network-effect-leaden singleton. We say "GPL-compatible", but it's more accurate to say "GPL-submissive". The difference was felt very directly by the Eclipse folks in the run up to EPLv2. But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity lic…

It is always useful to fall back to basic when ever people try to redefine copyleft or GPL. A copyright license is a list of complex permissions. Nothing more, nothing less. If you have a two set of permissions, compatibility is the logical conclusions of finding intersection and see which actions are permitted in both set. Set theory do not have submissive and dominant sets. The intersection is always the elements w…

You’re technically correct, and I think set theory is a very productive metaphor for the analysis. But that analysis with GPL hasn’t worked out so cleanly, however, due to its complexity. Even GPLv2 is a relatively long license. It attempts to spell out copyleft in relatively low-level terms, legally speaking. Add on additional cleverness, like anti-TiVo and liberty-or-death, and it becomes very hard to say where the boundaries are, or to compare them to less idiosyncratic licenses.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#77

Post by rwmj »

kemitchell wrote: post #67
rwmj wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limits commercial use to a short trial period of 32 days. When a commercial user’s trial runs out, they need to buy a private license or stop using your software. So it's clearly not Free Software because it doesn't respect freedom 0. Hardly a surprise that Bradley Kuhn and the FSF object to it being classified as such. This is hardly a failure of "free software", just the author wants to try to subvert the definit…

I’ve never presented Prosperity, the noncommercial form, as free or open source. The debate was about Parity, the strong copyleft form.

Why not simply use the GPL?

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#79

Post by o-__-o »

de_watcher wrote: post #51
o-__-o wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your employer is an entity (a person, an LLC, or a corporation), you work for that entity. The entity is allowed to distribute it among themselves but the entity prevents itself from distributing to others (by following the license constraints). You, the employee, do not gain the right to the software because the employer did not give you, personally, any permission to the software. Only once the software has been di…

If the employer distributes to the third party then the employee still doesn't have the rights. But the third party can distribute to anybody.

Hmm GPL states any distributed modifications must be shared. So the employee does not violate any licenses by snagging a copy of the code that was distributed. I’m sure there may be other violations that may cause an involuntary termination event, but per the license the world now has the right (and the company is violating the GPL by not offering the code)

I will add if the company fixes their GPL violation then the employee is now violating the new license (since the GpL licensed code wasn’t valid in the first place). So it is best to not pirate any code even if you think it should be open (until the employer has confirmed in some way)

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#80

Post by Proven »

I disagree with the author (and also with the FSF).

To me main purpose of "free" software isn't to bring prosperity (to developers, but also anyone else for that matter), but freedom to its users. Which means no undue obligations.

What's the point of using "free" software if I have to read the freaking license, count how many days it's been since some coworker installed some "free" software or spend money (legal, web site, internal reviews) in order to comply?

Not only do I dislike these fake free software licenses, I also prefer to not contribute to any harassmentware (stuff licensed under GPLv3 and such) because it sometimes restricts users' freedom in ways more restrictive than closed source software, and it is always more restrictive than permissive libra software.

Post reply on HN