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

Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#71

Post by cookiecaper »

Omega191 wrote: post #44
cookiecaper wrote: post #24

Stallman's insistence on unlimited and unrestricted redistribution at a price not exceeding cost is the critical flaw with the free software movement. While I agree that this is good and should be encouraged where possible, if there were a license or some support for persons that allowed access to and modification of the code and redistribution of the code only to persons who were appropriately licensed by the copyri…

This is comparing apples to oranges; you don't lose the possession of software when you share it.

You do lose the ability to make money off of software licenses when you include a stipulation that every recipient is free to redistribute your software's source as far and as much as possible at a price not exceeding the cost of the reproduction and distribution of the code, and that he is free to resell binaries of said software at any price. As we see with RHEL, if you try to do so, something like CentOS will come in and spoil the party.

There are times when this kind of sharing is good, but I believe if we were interested less in economic zealotry and more interested in individual freedom to control the software that runs on one's computer, we'd see a lot more people distributing source code. That would ultimately produce a net increase in freedom for computer users, even if the rules say you can only share modifications with people that have a rightful license.

Those that want to license under a copyleft are by all means free to do so, but we shouldn't exclude people that would be willing to distribute source code so that their users can control the program themselves, but who are not willing to switch to a support or subscription based business model. You can't make much significant money selling GPL'd software, you only make money by selling support contracts to BigCo. And that model is not applicable to everyone, even if it works out OK for database systems and Linux distributions.

Whether it's simple to copy or not, it's not simple to implement or design, and implementers and designers should be compensated even if their work can be reproduced at minimal cost after its initial production and release. A car's physical properties that make it much more difficult to copy have nothing to do with whether the hoods should be opened or shut, and whether rightful owners should be free to tinker around inside.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#72

Post by bonch »

SwellJoe wrote: post #6
aniket_ray wrote: post #3

I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.

And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And, amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two very different things.)

Your software would still be open under a BSD license. Using it in a closed-source project doesn't automatically remove the existence of the open source version.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#73

Post by anonymoushn »

billswift wrote: post #32
kiba wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped caring and made my software public domain. Incidentally, nothing really happens until you become popular.

With the way copyright has been mangled in the last 35 years, public domain may not be safe - I have seen several people commenting that there is no way, since the copyright changes in the late 1970s, to affirmatively put your work in the public domain. Because of that risk, the WTFPL - Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License , http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ , or an equivalent, is safer for potential users. Note that…

I generally use WTFPL for this reason. I find that licenses which attempt to reproduce in forks of the host do not promote freedom.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#74

Post by rwl »

dwc wrote: post #53
SwellJoe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I…

Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' impo…

This argument doesn't work. Promoting "freedom," with respect to software or anything else, is always about promoting some specific freedoms at the expense of others. Copyleft licenses make a different set of tradeoffs than BSD-style licenses, it's true. But that doesn't mean that BSD-style licenses are "objectively" more free. They simply promote certain freedoms of programmers who are one step downstream from the source, at the expense of the freedoms of users who are further downstream. The GPL protects a particular set of freedoms for everyone downstream, at the expense of certain freedoms for those once-removed programmers.

The mere fact of an inherent trade-off in freedoms doesn't mean that the actions of the FSF, or programmers who use the GPL, are "about propagating your view of how things should be" and not "about freedom." That's just as ridiculous as saying that, in authoring the US Bill of Rights (say), the authors were not making decisions "about freedom" because they chose to promote certain freedoms of private citizens at the expense of certain freedoms of agents of the state.

It's a difficult social task to figure out which freedoms are the best to promote, and which can be traded off. But making the hard choices in these trade-offs isn't just a matter of promoting freedoms that one "likes better." Some freedoms are more important than others, insofar as they better promote our various social values and purposes. Whether or not you agree with the FSF's vision of what those values and purposes are and which freedoms best achieve them, it doesn't make any sense to write them off as merely working for some other agenda.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#75

Post by bad_user »

SwellJoe wrote: post #6
aniket_ray wrote: post #3

I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.

And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And, amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two very different things.)

Free as in MySQL and Java?

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#76

Post by bad_user »

wvenable wrote: post #59
dwc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open. I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps mod…

It depends on how you define "open". For Stallman, one of the main goals of free software is the ability to get into your software and be able to fix bugs and port it to other platforms -- it all started with RMS getting stuck with a proprietary printer driver. All that BSD code that's been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products is no longer open. You can't get into OS X and fix bugs or port it to…

That doesn't stop people from buying OSX or Windows, and you're saying it as if OSX couldn't have happened if it wasn't for the freebies they've incorporated.

Funny thing the Linux kernel came from a man that doesn't even buy RMS's propaganda, and that used GPL just because he was looking for some ROI.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#78

Post by dwc »

wvenable wrote: post #59
dwc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open. I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps mod…

It depends on how you define "open". For Stallman, one of the main goals of free software is the ability to get into your software and be able to fix bugs and port it to other platforms -- it all started with RMS getting stuck with a proprietary printer driver. All that BSD code that's been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products is no longer open. You can't get into OS X and fix bugs or port it to…

You are correct: the original code (and ongoing work based on it) is still open, and Apple, et al, versions are not.

This is fine. First and most importantly, because the desire to share code with BSD comes with no strings attached. It's just the desire to share. You don't have to have the same beliefs and priorities as I do in order to use my code. I believe in freedom enough to give you all the freedoms to do as you like with my code, and you don't have to behave in ways I see as good.

Secondly, if Apple were unable to use BSD code then what would happen? They would go completely proprietary, that's what. For them the alternative is not between BSD and GPL! Would the user be better served, or worse? As it stands, Apple contributes some things back to open/free projects, and a big part of that is due to their ties to BSD code.

Thirdly, with OS X as it is, or if Apple had not taken BSD code, or Apple did not even exist, would a user be more able or less able to run FreeBSD? No. Or GNU/Linux? Again, no.

Stallman and the FSF think that they're making a difference with licenses. But I think the truth may be that it's not the license that's really the movement. The movement is collaboration on a global scale and sharing code and making cool things for everyone to use. The licenses do not drive this. In the end we have to make sure that licenses serve our purpose rather than the other way around.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#79

Post by cschwarm »

SwellJoe wrote: post #64
dwc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' impo…

No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license. I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open…

When someone calls rape immoral, does he want to say that rape is a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against rape, and every violation should be punished?

When Stallman calls "non-free" software immoral, does he want to say that it's a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against publishing non-free software, and violations should be punished?

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#80

Post by bad_user »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #68
btilly wrote: post #17

Free software offers the end user benefits that the end user only rarely understands or appreciates. Open source offers developers benefits that lots of developers understand and appreciate. Therefore open source is a much better marketing tactic. (Which is exactly what it was designed to be.)

Anyone who's ever taken their car to an independent mechanic (rather than back to the dealer) ought to understand a key end user benefit of free software: you aren't limited by the interests of its creator. I'm confused that nobody seems to get this.

I get it, but it is also a bad analogy.

Cars can't be repaired with a quick update over the wire.

Post reply on HN