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

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#81

Post by zozbot234 »

kemitchell wrote: post #71
zozbot234 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I'm not aware of any case law to suggest that the right would not apply. Until the question is decided either way, it makes sense to assume that it would be applicable.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#82

Post by kemitchell »

zozbot234 wrote: post #81
kemitchell wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I'm not aware of any case law to suggest that the right would not apply. Until the question is decided either way, it makes sense to assume that it would be applicable.

That’s not how US law works.

Van Lindberg has done a lot of work on public performance recently. You might like to read his blog.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#83

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#84

Post by cy_hauser »

simonh wrote: post #47
catern wrote: post #2

While this article's tone is somewhat angry and personal, it makes some quite interesting points and takes a perspective that I've never heard before. Before reading the article I was tentatively in favor of more expansive copyleft licenses such as Mongo's SSPL, for various reasons. But I hadn't considered something implied by that position, which this article says directly: The FSF and what one might call "mainstrea…

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…

From where I sit it appears the FSF has come up with a particular definiton of "free" and opposes anyone using the term "free software" if their meaning of free differs from what the FSF desires. Maybe the term "FSF free" should be used when that is the intent rather than trying to corral the term "free software" itself.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#85

Post by kminehart »

rwmj wrote: post #77
kemitchell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The GPL has always been criticized for its definition of distribution, which allows companies to host SaaS offerings of GPL software without having to make their modifications available.

Hosting a GPL-licensed server and receiving network activity does not constitute distribution, which is why the AGPL exists.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#86

Post by belorn »

hyperpape wrote: post #73
belorn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Copyright is the entity that came first. A copyright license is the object you can use to claim you have permission to do something which copyright declares illegal by law.

We can put gpl first when trying to determine the intersection of all the set of permissions when dealing with multiple licenses, but in the end the fundamental question to be answered is: Do you have a set of permissions to do something which copyright makes illegal. Yes/No. In the case of multiple copyrighted work you need permission for all that which copyright limits in those cases.

If we want to look at it from a game theory perspective it we would ask who the agents are, their goals, the environment and the resources. Here a narrow intersection can be a cost, or it can be irrelevant depending on context. The biggest permission is always to write it yourself which make the limitation of copyright a non-issue for the author. Naturally that is not the only factor, nor the only agent, so it all depend.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#87

Post by StreamBright »

> their work resists the evil empire of the software industry

Not sure that the creators of BSD really cared about the things this article is talking about when created BSD license. Many of the opensource projects that I use are either created or maintained by the "evil empire of the software industry".

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#88

Post by belorn »

kemitchell wrote: post #76
belorn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is fair to say that a complex description of permissions is harder to define and compare than a simple description. GPLv3 attempts to be international interpreted across different copyright laws and to a degree different languages, which makes the job even harder.

But it also fair to point out that the basic permissions are fairly simple. Give the recipient source code of the whole work, put it under the same license, don't do something which a judge would deem as circumventing the authors intention of giving you those permissions.

The above simplified version of copyleft would likely work fine, although I suspect every lawyer on the globe would hate it.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#89

Post by danShumway »

I recently developed a new vegan dish that addresses some of the practical problems with veganism as a whole by using bugs as a substitute protein source. Very promising, but these critics keep on attacking me, claiming I can't call my product vegan because "technically" it uses animal by-products.

And I think this shows why the vegan community organizers and primary advocates are actually anti-innovation. If the vegan movement wants to actually achieve its ideals, we need to reject the old guard that ideologically insists that no vegan dishes can contain meat.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#90

Post by kemitchell »

belorn wrote: post #88
kemitchell wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is fair to say that a complex description of permissions is harder to define and compare than a simple description. GPLv3 attempts to be international interpreted across different copyright laws and to a degree different languages, which makes the job even harder. But it also fair to point out that the basic permissions are fairly simple. Give the recipient source code of the whole work, put it under the same lice…

> The above simplified version of copyleft would likely work fine, although I suspect every lawyer on the globe would hate it.

I’m familiar with several who do not!

Post reply on HN