91–100 of 123 posts
Frank Karlitschek (Nextcloud and Owncloud founder) has a very interesting take regarding open source and licences[1] [1]: https://karlitschek.de/2019/08/open-source-if-more-than-lice...
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…
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.
Literally this entire conflict could go away if critics of the FSF just used the term "Source Available". What would be wrong with that?
Why does our community need to be the one to give up our terms and muddy years of existing language, documentation, and cultural association? What exactly is the problem with just using the words "Source Available"? If someone develops a new license, why is it suddenly my responsibility to redefine the terminology I used for everything I've ever built?
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 veg…
But he neglects to mention the fundamental point that the community is not well served by a proliferation of licenses.
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 veg…
Your dish isn't vegan though. It may be an improvement over eating meat, but it still creates suffering for living creatures. I don't know why you need so strongly to apply the "vegan" label to whatever your dish is, especially when it seems to involve literally eating "meat" from insects. Just call it "sustainable omnivorism" or something.
> When I wrote a strong copyleft license for dev tools, the FSF faithful objected. Why wouldn’t a movement best known for dev tools and software freedom want a copyleft license that requires devs using dev tools to make their work free?
Because it's not Free software. It may be an improvement over proprietary software, but it's still restricting user freedom. Just call it "Source Available" or something.
The author makes interesting points well illustrated by the abuses, by multinational corporations and internet fatcats, of the licenses we depend upon. But he neglects to mention the fundamental point that the community is not well served by a proliferation of licenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your dish isn't vegan though. It may be an improvement over eating meat, but it still creates suffering for living creatures. I don't know why you need so strongly to apply the "vegan" label to whatever your dish is, especially when it seems to involve literally eating "meat" from insects. Just call it "sustainable omnivorism" or something.
Now take the same reaction you just had, and apply it in the context of Kyle's post. > When I wrote a strong copyleft license for dev tools, the FSF faithful objected. Why wouldn’t a movement best known for dev tools and software freedom want a copyleft license that requires devs using dev tools to make their work free? Because it's not Free software. It may be an improvement over proprietary software, but it's still…
GPL restricts my freedom to build and share closed applications with free libraries, in order to prevent the creation of closed software that restricts others' freedom.
AGPL restrict my freedom to build and share network applications as closed software with free code, in order to prevent the creation of closed software that restricts others' freedom.
Why can't a license restrict my freedom to build closed applications with free dev tools, in order to prevent the creation of closed software that likewise restrict others' freedom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've thought this for years: the aggressive defense of super liberal OSS licenses with no sort of "SaaS clause" or other limits turns FOSS into free labor for SaaS companies. SaaS is more closed than closed: you control nothing, not even your data, and can trivially be spied on and monetized in other questionable ways. The fact that some of the pieces of a SaaS site are open source is meaningless and changes nothing.…
>free labor for SaaS companies Approximately all then open source software I work with on a daily basis is SaaS companies pooling efforts on the problems they have in common, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your dish isn't vegan though. It may be an improvement over eating meat, but it still creates suffering for living creatures. I don't know why you need so strongly to apply the "vegan" label to whatever your dish is, especially when it seems to involve literally eating "meat" from insects. Just call it "sustainable omnivorism" or something.
Now take the same reaction you just had, and apply it in the context of Kyle's post. > When I wrote a strong copyleft license for dev tools, the FSF faithful objected. Why wouldn’t a movement best known for dev tools and software freedom want a copyleft license that requires devs using dev tools to make their work free? Because it's not Free software. It may be an improvement over proprietary software, but it's still…
I understand the central complaints that it's hard to keep the lights on writing FOSS, and that when FOSS isn't winning, ideological purity can marginalize it where compromises might do more good overall. But those discussions aren't helped by a baffled "why don't you just accept this?" framing. Disputes like the one between FSF and OSI are explicit about acknowledging and analyzing the tradeoffs between approaches. Nonspecific "FOSS isn't winning!" arguments instead rely on the dodge of "we need to do something and this is something", without stopping to justify what's being changed or why.