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

How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

jarinheit.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#81

Post by klipt »

baddox wrote: post #80
loup-vaillant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that the GPL prevents one thing and one thing only: making proprietary forks. Meaning, the only "freedom" it doesn't give you is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. This limit is perfectly in line with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I argue that anything that allow this limit to be crossed does not most efficiently promotes freedom. Yes, permissive licences do not most ef…

It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.

You can conceal any code you write from scratch, but you can't build onto GPL code for free without agreeing to reciprocate. It seems a fair exchange to me.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#82

Post by limmeau »

moe wrote: post #72
limmeau wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think social networks need the same architecture as file-sharing networks. I want the data I publish on my social network node to be available 24/7 to my network friends. Since neither I nor most of my friends have a server at home, that means hosting the data on some server in some hosting center. So Rails isn't a necessarily stupid idea for a social network consisting of people like me.

Since neither I nor most of my friends have a server at home, that means hosting the data on some server in some hosting center. No. P2P networks like freenet and edonkey already distribute content over many nodes, just with different goals and priorities. It would be possible to adapt these mechanisms to ensure that data you push to the network actually stays in the network for a reasonable period of client-downtime…

Perhaps we have different threat models regarding social networks. I'm concerned about one big company being able to analyze (within its own databases) the social network communication and friend-graph of a large part of the population. I'm less concerned about targeted attacks on individual semi-public messages. Some of my friends use Adobe Reader anyway.

If reading a person's social network communication and local friend graph requires approximately the same effort as breaking into an individual mail server or sniffing SMTP traffic on a network node, and the criminal effort is approximately proportional to the number of persons to supervise, that's OK for 1.0 for me.

I don't know the details of the protocol between Diaspora instances. But I hope that if some foreign Diaspora instance wants to read my messages to my friends on my own Diaspora instance, then it has to supply some proof that one of its users is a friend of mine.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#83

Post by loup-vaillant »

baddox wrote: post #80
loup-vaillant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that the GPL prevents one thing and one thing only: making proprietary forks. Meaning, the only "freedom" it doesn't give you is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. This limit is perfectly in line with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I argue that anything that allow this limit to be crossed does not most efficiently promotes freedom. Yes, permissive licences do not most ef…

It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.

[tired] How often do I have to say it ?

[Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a private fork.

Now in the case of software executed remotely, or software as a service, Eben Moglen himself reckons there is a conflict of rights: because the client is effectively using the code, it should have access to the source code. And because the server do not actually distribute the software, it should have the right not to release anything.

You can't satisfy both rights at the same time. The GPL satisfies one (it is 100% compatible with privacy rights), and the AGPL satisfies the other (and makes itself incompatible with some privacy rights in the process). That's a pity, because before the rise of software as a service, the GPL was the ultimate freedom respecting licence. Now you have to choose between two compromises.

PS: Don't say "property" about software, if you can help it. It is a inaccurate analogy from the physical goods, which fail to convey the truth about knowledge. (Of course, software is pure knowledge.)

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#84

Post by loup-vaillant »

klipt wrote: post #81
baddox wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.

You can conceal any code you write from scratch, but you can't build onto GPL code for free without agreeing to reciprocate. It seems a fair exchange to me.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902

You can build onto GPL for free without reciprocating. That's called freedom 1: the right to private modifications.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#85

Post by moe »

limmeau wrote: post #82
moe wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since neither I nor most of my friends have a server at home, that means hosting the data on some server in some hosting center. No. P2P networks like freenet and edonkey already distribute content over many nodes, just with different goals and priorities. It would be possible to adapt these mechanisms to ensure that data you push to the network actually stays in the network for a reasonable period of client-downtime…

Perhaps we have different threat models regarding social networks. I'm concerned about one big company being able to analyze (within its own databases) the social network communication and friend-graph of a large part of the population. I'm less concerned about targeted attacks on individual semi-public messages. Some of my friends use Adobe Reader anyway. If reading a person's social network communication and local…

Well, as said, my criticism comes from half a privacy angle, but mostly from the technical/execution angle.

Their prototype leaves so many basic (and hard!) questions unanswered that, to me, their architecture smells less like a conscious decision and more like a strong case of: "If all you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a thumb."

In all honesty it looks like a non-starter to me.

Sure, "just start hacking" is what everyone tells young startups to do, and that's what they apparently did.

But that approach doesn't work very well for building a distributed system where all the components absolutely must snap into one another if you don't want the whole thing to fall apart under stress. Much less if your stated goals include terms like "privacy" and "security".

The old proverb "Weeks of coding can save you hours of planning" does not apply here, at all.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#86

Post by baddox »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #83
baddox wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.

[tired] How often do I have to say it ? [Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a privat…

I don't understand how your comment is opposed to mine. We're both saying that the GPL (and AGPL) is inconsistent. The only difference is you deem it an acceptable compromise, while I'm still a bit skeptical.

Specifically, I'm skeptical of the claim that if a client uses code, he or she deserves access to the source code. Sure, it's probably better to provide access to it, just like it's probably better to donate to charity, but I don't think either should be enforced by threat of violence (while it may sound silly initially, software license litigation boils down to a threat of violence).

To me, code in the public domain (or all code in a society with no legal protection for code) is perfect. That seems to me like purer freedom.

Lastly, when did I say "property" about software? I'm against legal protection for intellectual property when it comes to software. I agree that software is pure knowledge, every piece of software (that compiles/runs) is an algorithm (in fact, a number), and that writing a piece of software or coming up with an algorithm should give you no inherent ownership of it.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#87

Post by loup-vaillant »

baddox wrote: post #86
loup-vaillant wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[tired] How often do I have to say it ? [Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a privat…

I don't understand how your comment is opposed to mine. We're both saying that the GPL (and AGPL) is inconsistent. The only difference is you deem it an acceptable compromise, while I'm still a bit skeptical. Specifically, I'm skeptical of the claim that if a client uses code, he or she deserves access to the source code. Sure, it's probably better to provide access to it, just like it's probably better to donate to…

The reason you deserve to have access to the code you run is because it's the only way for you to trust it. Code you don't have access to has a tendency to betray you with various "features" (spying, arbitrary limitations…), that just wouldn't be there if you had access to the code. In my view, resorting to state violence to prevent such treason is perfectly justified.

What you call "purer freedom" is actually negative freedom, which is about not forbidding. The GPL promotes positive freedom, which is about enabling. As we can see when we compare the GPL and permissive licences, the GPL is more effective at enabling everyone to look at the source code. For me, that's what counts. I don't care about how "pure" the freedom is, I just care about it's effectiveness.

Lastly, you said "Free software […] is incompatible with privacy and property rights". "Privacy" was appropriately used, but I think you tossed "property" without much thought, using its positive and undeniable aura.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#88

Post by baddox »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #87
baddox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how your comment is opposed to mine. We're both saying that the GPL (and AGPL) is inconsistent. The only difference is you deem it an acceptable compromise, while I'm still a bit skeptical. Specifically, I'm skeptical of the claim that if a client uses code, he or she deserves access to the source code. Sure, it's probably better to provide access to it, just like it's probably better to donate to…

The reason you deserve to have access to the code you run is because it's the only way for you to trust it. Code you don't have access to has a tendency to betray you with various "features" (spying, arbitrary limitations…), that just wouldn't be there if you had access to the code. In my view, resorting to state violence to prevent such treason is perfectly justified. What you call "purer freedom" is actually negati…

Are you saying your and/or the Free Software Movement's philosophy goes like this: Since access to code is the only way to trust software, everyone deserves the right to the access? The only way I'll be able to have a Ferrari is if it's sold to me for only a few thousand dollars. Does that mean I a deserve a Ferrari for a few thousand dollars? Something being preferable doesn't mean it's deserved.

How can this be a negative vs. positive freedom argument? Not distributing source code places restriction on the client, while forcing developers to distribute source code places restriction on the developers. Either way, if software usage is restricted at all, then someone's freedoms are going to be restricted. The only solution I see is for there to be no legal protection of software, period.

I used "property" to refer to the physical hard drive holding your data, as well as your house and land. Of course, many argue that privacy rights follow logically from property rights, so the distinction probably isn't necessary.

Re: How Diaspora killed itself before it even launched

#89

Post by loup-vaillant »

baddox wrote: post #88
loup-vaillant wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you deserve to have access to the code you run is because it's the only way for you to trust it. Code you don't have access to has a tendency to betray you with various "features" (spying, arbitrary limitations…), that just wouldn't be there if you had access to the code. In my view, resorting to state violence to prevent such treason is perfectly justified. What you call "purer freedom" is actually negati…

Are you saying your and/or the Free Software Movement's philosophy goes like this: Since access to code is the only way to trust software, everyone deserves the right to the access? The only way I'll be able to have a Ferrari is if it's sold to me for only a few thousand dollars. Does that mean I a deserve a Ferrari for a few thousand dollars? Something being preferable doesn't mean it's deserved. How can this be a n…

I certainly did not want to say that for any A and B, if the only way to have B is to have A, then we must have A. In some case, however, B is either a fundamental right, or is necessary to exercise that right. Here, B is the right to privacy and free speech.

To exercise your right to free speech, the only reasonable way is to use the Internet. And you need to run computer code to do that. Similarly, to protect your privacy, the code you run (all of it) has to be trustworthy. And I say that to be trustworthy, the code must be free, at least for you. Conclusion: running free code (and only free code) is necessary to exercise some fundamental rights. Therefore, everyone deserve it.

The positive/negative freedom argument comes from the facts that (0) the four freedom are way more important than the freedom to proprietarize software, and (1) they conflict. If you want to preserve the greater freedoms, you have to sacrifice the lesser one. Now, people could be reasonable, and respect the four freedom even when they are allowed not to. But I think we can agree that many people aren't reasonable (the most famous example was X).

I now understand your usage of the word "property" was indeed legitimate.

Post reply on HN