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

Toward Copyleft Equality for All

sfconservancy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#11

Post by kazinator »

yarrel wrote: post #8

> The toxicity of this business model has only become apparent in hindsight. I'm glad that Bradley is drawing critical attention to this issue. > efforts to draft even more restrictive software copyleft licenses A non-free "copyleft" license is not worthy of the name and is a problem because it is non-free, not because of "copyleft". > The clause still needs work The license needs work,it seems to treat copyleft as a…

Downstream users cannot remove clauses put in place by the copyright holder, even for alterations that they make, because those are derived works. A pure addition that you make to a copylefted program is your copyright; you have to license it in a way which is compatible with that program, but otherwise it can be anything. E.g. you can add 2-Clause-BSD-licensed code to a GPL-ed program and then redistribute that to your own downstream users. The GPL still applies to the thing as a whole; users can use just your portion alone under its BSD license (like borrow the code into another program).

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#12

Post by Tyr42 »

tptacek wrote: post #6

The premise of this post is that dual-licensing --- offering a piece of serverside or on-prem commercial software under (A)GPL terms, with a proprietary license available for firms that want unrestricted usage --- is "seedy". It's not clear to me how that premise is justified, and Kuhn's claim that the model has failed to increase software freedom seems totally unjustified. At the heart of Kuhn's argument about "seed…

If you wish for a dissenting opinion on the MongoDB, I enjoy the writing of Kyle Mitchel at /dev/lawyer

https://writing.kemitchell.com/series/SSPL.html

Kyle is a advocate of dual licensing ("selling exceptions") and has even created License Zero [1] which is attempting to allow the creation of npm libraries which are dual licensed and an automatic command line tool to pay developers.

[1]: https://licensezero.com/ see also https://writing.kemitchell.com/2017/09/12/The-License-Zero-M...

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#13

Post by dredmorbius »

kazinator wrote: post #9
dredmorbius wrote: post #3

Two standout points from this essay: 1. I've long heard that various SaaS companies really didn't like the Affero General Public License. Kuhn makes a case for why this is a validly justified concern, something I'd not previously considered. 2. The copyleft restriction termination is a really interesting concept, though not without its own set of consequences which should be closely examined. Historically, the advant…

That Affero license doesn't seem very useful, because if you depend on code running on someone else's server, it doesn't help you if you have an honest copy of the source code that is actually running on it. You still don't control it. You can't make changes and deploy it to that server, or update it yourself, etc.. Free, open-source software is about control: controlling what code manipulates your data. In short, it…

The Affero license gives you precisely the rights to the code. No, it doesn't give you rights to the server the code runs on, but you can spin up your own server (often little more than a RaPi box, possibly more at scale), avoiding lock-in based on software alone.

But it obliges you to provide or make available those changes if the use will "propogate" the work.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#14

Post by tuukkah »

kazinator wrote: post #9
dredmorbius wrote: post #3

Two standout points from this essay: 1. I've long heard that various SaaS companies really didn't like the Affero General Public License. Kuhn makes a case for why this is a validly justified concern, something I'd not previously considered. 2. The copyleft restriction termination is a really interesting concept, though not without its own set of consequences which should be closely examined. Historically, the advant…

That Affero license doesn't seem very useful, because if you depend on code running on someone else's server, it doesn't help you if you have an honest copy of the source code that is actually running on it. You still don't control it. You can't make changes and deploy it to that server, or update it yourself, etc.. Free, open-source software is about control: controlling what code manipulates your data. In short, it…

Isn't the point that you can modify and deploy a copy on your own infrastructure?

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#15

Post by dredmorbius »

tptacek wrote: post #6

The premise of this post is that dual-licensing --- offering a piece of serverside or on-prem commercial software under (A)GPL terms, with a proprietary license available for firms that want unrestricted usage --- is "seedy". It's not clear to me how that premise is justified, and Kuhn's claim that the model has failed to increase software freedom seems totally unjustified. At the heart of Kuhn's argument about "seed…

I've reread Kuhn's piece several times. It's that unfortunate mix of tantalising and unclear.

My understanding is that it's not the dual-licensing per se that's toxic, but the goal of copyleft-noncompliance legal actions. Rather than, as the FSF and SFC seek: "Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance." (https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...) The businesses of which Kuhn is critical seek instead "to 'convert' those FOSS users into paying customers for proprietary licensing for the same codebase."

Arguably, the failure here might be of the GPL failing to specify what is an acceptable remedy, though if that were defanged to only be "release affected code as ", it might afford too great a latitude to other forms of black-hat actors.

I'm not sure if I agree with Kuhn's assessments or remedies. I think the discussion's worth having, and appreciate your input.

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#16

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #6

The premise of this post is that dual-licensing --- offering a piece of serverside or on-prem commercial software under (A)GPL terms, with a proprietary license available for firms that want unrestricted usage --- is "seedy". It's not clear to me how that premise is justified, and Kuhn's claim that the model has failed to increase software freedom seems totally unjustified. At the heart of Kuhn's argument about "seed…

[deleted]

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#17

Post by rocqua »

tptacek wrote: post #6

The premise of this post is that dual-licensing --- offering a piece of serverside or on-prem commercial software under (A)GPL terms, with a proprietary license available for firms that want unrestricted usage --- is "seedy". It's not clear to me how that premise is justified, and Kuhn's claim that the model has failed to increase software freedom seems totally unjustified. At the heart of Kuhn's argument about "seed…

> People sign CLAs because they want their modifications upstreamed, and to avoid maintaining forks, not because they're legally required to do so.

This is still coercive though. It is the big party using their power to get developers to give up their rights.

Notably, by giving up these rights, it becomes possible for the party to go against the FOSS principles that were the reason copy-left was invented.

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#18

Post by kazinator »

dredmorbius wrote: post #13
kazinator wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Affero license doesn't seem very useful, because if you depend on code running on someone else's server, it doesn't help you if you have an honest copy of the source code that is actually running on it. You still don't control it. You can't make changes and deploy it to that server, or update it yourself, etc.. Free, open-source software is about control: controlling what code manipulates your data. In short, it…

The Affero license gives you precisely the rights to the code . No, it doesn't give you rights to the server the code runs on, but you can spin up your own server (often little more than a RaPi box, possibly more at scale), avoiding lock-in based on software alone. But it obliges you to provide or make available those changes if the use will "propogate" the work. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

If I spin my own server, why would I care what anyone else has done with their server, code-wise? Does everyone in the world who has publicly installed that server owe me a copy of their source code, even if what I run and use is strictly my own server built from the upstream code?

By the way, the AGPL3 definition of "propagate" looks exactly the same as that of the the regular GPL3. Operating software as a server doesn't fall under "propagate".

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#19

Post by vorpalhex »

tptacek wrote: post #6

The premise of this post is that dual-licensing --- offering a piece of serverside or on-prem commercial software under (A)GPL terms, with a proprietary license available for firms that want unrestricted usage --- is "seedy". It's not clear to me how that premise is justified, and Kuhn's claim that the model has failed to increase software freedom seems totally unjustified. At the heart of Kuhn's argument about "seed…

> But CLAs aren't coercive

CLAs are frequently coercive, rights depriving and generally a bad move, and I as a FOSS contributor won't sign them.

Yes, occasionally they are used correctly - but more often than not they're used to crowdsource work on what is really a proprietary codebase with crazy potential restrictions if the owning company decides to call them in.

Re: Toward Copyleft Equality for All

#20

Post by v7x »

I see a few comments in here, and have seen similar comments in similar topics in other threads, saying that they dont understand why anyone would choose this over other FOSS licenses. These questions are asked from a developer-centric perspective. FOSS never has been, and never will be, developer-centric. Free as in freedom software was created to be USER-centric. The whole point is to take power AWAY from the developer, because otherwise the balance is always in the developer's favor. The benefit for the developer is that developers are also users, so they in turn benefit from others releasing the software as FOSS, both as libraries to write better software with and as programs used in day to day computing.

Any issues companies have with FOSS licenses is entirely on them, assuming they arent one of the few who actively contributes to and fights for FOSS. MongoDB doesn't like competition from Amazon? Understandable. But don't play the victim and then turn around and screw everyone who isn't Amazon over with a license change. Maybe instead you could take some of your shake-down money and put it to good use by lobbying against these monopolistic conglomarates in the valley so that they can't use their overreaching power to screw you with your own code. Maybe instead, you could encourage ALL developers to start using copyleft licenses, instead of the weaker licenses everyone loves to throw on their project these days. Because those weaker licenses are somewhat to blame for this too. What good is a FOSS program if its just going to lead to more proprietary software? How does that help anyone? There's a reason most of the big tech monopolies release most of the open source code they do produce under non-copyleft licenses. Its not because they love FOSS, its so that they can pay lip service to the community and then use it with their the proprietary programs we're so concerned about them surveiling us with. Of course, the retort to all of this is "developers need to eat to, how can we make money off of copyleft?" I have two answers, one thats snarky but possibly helpful and one that's honest but possibly rude, and hopefully enlightening. The first answer is "Ask Qt." "Ask Blender." "Ask Redhat." Ask one of the many companies that do buisiness while still releasing their main software under a FOSS license. They all seem to be doing pretty well. The second answer is that I don't care how or even if you make money. Thats not the reason you release something as FOSS. Never has been, never will be. If you release software as FOSS, its because you believe that there should be a balance of power between developers and users. Its because you believe that sharing information and knowledge is the best way we can improve quality of life for ourselves and those around us. If you can't make those ideals your biggest priority even in the face of financial loss, frankly don't even bother releasing your software as FOSS. I'd rather your software be proprietary. That way I'll know to avoid it and we won't have to waste eachothers time.

Post reply on HN