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

Do we need to rethink what free software is?

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#131

Post by cousin_it »

> As governments make more and more use of technology to perform acts of mass surveillance, detention, and even genocide, software authors may feel legitimately appalled at the idea that they are helping enable this by allowing their software to be used for any purpose.

This reminds me of US visa application forms. After you list all your relatives and past employers and places you've been in the last decade, there's about three pages of questions like "have you tortured kids or are you currently planning to", "have you committed genocide with biological weapons or are you planning to" and such. The idea is that genocide mongers will tick "yes", so the US can deny their visa.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

cousin_it wrote: post #131

> As governments make more and more use of technology to perform acts of mass surveillance, detention, and even genocide, software authors may feel legitimately appalled at the idea that they are helping enable this by allowing their software to be used for any purpose. This reminds me of US visa application forms. After you list all your relatives and past employers and places you've been in the last decade, there's…

> The idea is that genocide mongers will tick "yes", so the US can deny their visa.

You have failed to understand the system.

The idea is that they will tick “no”, and that then even if their crimes can't be proven to the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) necessary to impose imprisonment, capital punishment, or other criminal sanction they will then be subject to civil sanction for immigration violations, including deportation and bar from future legal entry, on the lower standard applicable to those non-criminal sanctions.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#133

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
cousin_it wrote: post #131

> As governments make more and more use of technology to perform acts of mass surveillance, detention, and even genocide, software authors may feel legitimately appalled at the idea that they are helping enable this by allowing their software to be used for any purpose. This reminds me of US visa application forms. After you list all your relatives and past employers and places you've been in the last decade, there's…

> The idea is that genocide mongers will tick "yes", so the US can deny their visa. You have failed to understand the system. The idea is that they will tick “no”, and that then even if their crimes can't be proven to the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) necessary to impose imprisonment, capital punishment, or other criminal sanction they will then be subject to civil sanction for immigration vi…

[deleted]

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#134

Post by temac »

bitwize wrote: post #116
temac wrote: post #109

The agenda is made very clear toward the end of the article: > As stewards of the free software definition, the Free Software Foundation should be taking the lead in ensuring that these issues are discussed. The priority of the board right now should be to restructure itself to ensure that it can legitimately claim to represent the community and play the leadership role it's been failing to in recent years, otherwise…

Sometimes they spill their spaghetti so willingly that all talk of ulterior motives becomes moot. And if they can't change the norms of the community, fracturing it beyond repair is fine with them because it doesn't deserve to exist if it does not conform to their moral standards.

I do not think that there is a coordinated effort whatsoever to disrupt Free Software communities (at least not at industrial scale, maybe there are groups of 3 or 4 people with a similar mindset doing things together, but that is the case for pretty much anything on earth...), only - and especially in this case - personal opinions and approaches I sometimes strongly disagree with. Here to the point of not even understanding from where Matthew comes from, although it is true that some Linux devs are sometimes extremely far from the "canon" free software ideologies -- or maybe simply never really thought deeply about it.

And certainly this is the case here: getting rid of freedom 0 is not exactly something I would casually suggest esp in the name of preventing fracturing; I would expect the effect to be precisely the opposite :/ And I'm not sure at all why anybody would expect otherwise.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#135

Post by csande17 »

amenod wrote: post #95
jraph wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To answer your question: probably any software following the widely accepted, opinion-free definition of "free software". Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. You are free not to like some free software licenses though.

> Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions. There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to pa…

I'm not sure Commons Clause even meets those informal requirements.

You can't run Commons Clause software if you're receiving payment for doing so. You can't redistribute Commons Clause software verbatim if you're receiving payment for doing so. (As written, it even appears to prohibit selling a CD of the software for the cost of the blank CD, a service that's otherwise widely accepted as a useful community contribution.)

Because the Commons Clause restricts the situations in which you can run and redistribute the software, software licensed under it isn't free software.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#136

Post by temac »

amenod wrote: post #95
jraph wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To answer your question: probably any software following the widely accepted, opinion-free definition of "free software". Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. You are free not to like some free software licenses though.

> Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions. There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to pa…

"Common Clause" prevents everybody to run it for "any purpose". Of course it does not fit the requirement for free software.

I doubt that "can you run it?" is meant to be interpreted as: "can you run it, sometimes?"

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#137

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
cousin_it wrote: post #131

> As governments make more and more use of technology to perform acts of mass surveillance, detention, and even genocide, software authors may feel legitimately appalled at the idea that they are helping enable this by allowing their software to be used for any purpose. This reminds me of US visa application forms. After you list all your relatives and past employers and places you've been in the last decade, there's…

> The idea is that genocide mongers will tick "yes", so the US can deny their visa. You have failed to understand the system. The idea is that they will tick “no”, and that then even if their crimes can't be proven to the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) necessary to impose imprisonment, capital punishment, or other criminal sanction they will then be subject to civil sanction for immigration vi…

[deleted]

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#138

Post by temac »

raverbashing wrote: post #94
craigsmansion wrote: post #77

Absent is any mention of the Affero GPL. And that's the problem. Who is trustworthy? > "The priority of the board right now should be to restructure itself to ensure that it can legitimately claim to represent the community" Who is this appeal to, and what is it for? Is it genuine or an attempt, in the current upheaval, to have the board restructured to make it less effective? > "and play the leadership role it's bee…

Ethics evolve, and shouldn't be pinned to a person. BSD licensed software is fine as well, nobody would say it is unethical. In the same way the GPL3 came about due to external circumstances, other forms of licensing should be able to be considered free (like the AGPL or maybe others) with regards to the current landscape and circumstances.

Everybody who matters already consider AGPL a free software licence, and that's not even because of an hypothetical evolution of any position.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#139

Post by colejohnson66 »

notus wrote: post #110
carapace wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL -> "Free" MIT or BSD -> "Open"

You mean GPL -> "Free, but..."

No. It is free: the end user can do whatever they want with the software. It’s restricting the rights of the developer to give the user more freedom.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#140

Post by jraph »

lambertsimnel wrote: post #121
jraph wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and I remember Stallman saying that these exceptions are not desirable in a talk. Matthew Garrett certainly knows it and certainly wants that something is done on the matter. Which could be good. However, the title implies a possible evolution of the definition of free software, but I just can't see that as conceivable. That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1, breaking many…

> That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1 But one isn't prime: https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html

Yes, that was ironic. 1 used to be prime for some time at some point in the past. I picked a mathematical definition that changed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_on...

Post reply on HN