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

81–90 of 153 posts

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

#81

Post by 9000 »

rmilejczz wrote: post #60
rubbingalcohol wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL is based around a well-defined set of ethics that centers around giving the user complete freedom to use and modify the software. This is necessary for software to be considered free. It's certainly possible to restrict usage based around a moral code. Look at the JSON License: https://www.json.org/license.html > The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. So, yes, it would be possible to restrict software…

>The GPL is based around a well-defined set of ethics that centers around giving the user complete freedom to use and modify the software I take issue with this. First of all, this “well-defined” qualifier is ironically poorly defined. What does that mean? It either is or is not derived from some principle or set of principles; it is ultimately an example of ethics being imposed as a restriction. Secondly, you don’t…

For your first question, this is mostly about legal interpretability. The GPL has a long text that describes explicitly what it allows and doesn't. Yes, that is based on an ethical framework, but that ethical framework is all baked into the text of the license. There is no ambiguity. The GP contrasts this with the JSON license which only uses the term 'good' to describe what it allows. This is incredibly ambiguous from a court's perspective, likely past the point of just being thrown out as a clause in a legal contract.

For your second question, you are right that you don't have 'complete freedom,' which another commenter pointed out cannot even theoretically exist. The closest you really get is public domain, in which you're not even restricted like the MIT; you don't even have to list the author! (IANAL, so this is not legal advice, but just my understanding.) However, the GPL is not interested in guaranteeing complete freedom, in the style of very permissive licenses. Instead, it's interested in maximizing end-user freedom. An MIT library can immediately be placed in a proprietary program, and now the end-user has none of the Four Freedoms, though the author of the program still has all of them. So, the GPL puts restrictions on developers and how they can use the software ('limiting freedom', if you want, though it's the freedom to limit others' Four Freedoms that is being limited), to guarantee that the Four Freedoms reach the end-user. This does lead to incompatibility as you've outlined, and so goreportcard would have to adopt the GPL to use the library and remain compliant (again, IANAL), but from the perspective of the GNU foundation, this maximizes the total number of freedoms retained because it continues to protect end-users. I hope this helps, I wanted to expand on what the goals of the GPL actually are, since you seemed to earnestly be asking.

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

#82

Post by kube-system »

kazinator wrote: post #76
kube-system wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If copyright didn't exist, nobody could be required to share their changes to another person's work under schemes like GPL. Corporations would no longer be legally compelled to contribute to free software projects. Projects like Linux would likely be abandoned as large institutional users fork the projects and leave the original project to rot.

If copyright didn't exist, they could only use physical tamper-resistance techniques to protect their work from reverse engineering and copying.

Or they could simply refuse to sell it to you or anyone else without signing an NDA.

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

#83

Post by randallsquared »

johnisgood wrote: post #59
booleandilemma wrote: post #22

The JSON license includes a requirement that "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" Thanks, I never knew this and needed a chuckle this morning.

Is it a joke or do they really not realize that there are no universal moral truths and that "good" and "evil" are completely subjective? What are the legal implications of that statement in theory and practice?

> Is it a joke or do they really not realize that [...]

In case you're not aware, the idea that there are no universal moral truths is not universally accepted. :)

(But, yes, it was a joke at George W. Bush's expense, per wikipedia).

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

#84

Post by johnisgood »

randallsquared wrote: post #83
johnisgood wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a joke or do they really not realize that there are no universal moral truths and that "good" and "evil" are completely subjective? What are the legal implications of that statement in theory and practice?

> Is it a joke or do they really not realize that [...] In case you're not aware, the idea that there are no universal moral truths is not universally accepted. :) (But, yes, it was a joke at George W. Bush's expense, per wikipedia).

> the idea that there are no universal moral truths is not universally accepted.

Yes, I know, which further strengthens the point that this is an extremely subjective territory. :P

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

#85

Post by jraph »

notus wrote: post #80
Ace17 wrote: post #2

Feel free to create the "moral/ethical software" movement, but please don't touch the current definition of free software. People already have a hard time understanding what free software exactly is/requires/provides. Changing the definition at this point would only create confusion, especially if the new one is even more ethically grounded.

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as free.

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.

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

#86

Post by randallsquared »

kazinator wrote: post #24
kube-system wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful of what you ask for. IP laws are the foundation of what makes the GPL enforceable.

From the perspective of a developer using the BSD license, such as myself, this isn't such a big deal. A violation means "someone removed or replaced the copyright notice in my source code file". I don't want them to stop using or redistributing the program, including in its binary form that has no copyright notices; just restore the notices in any redistributed source. I'm in favor of retaining only a limited form o…

> I'm in favor of retaining only a limited form of IP law, which makes it unlawful to misrepresent the origin of a work.

There's a technical solution (crypto signing) to that which is applicable exactly to those people who care, so it seems unnecessary to have legal machinery to enforce it.

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

#87

Post by kube-system »

jraph wrote: post #36
prepend wrote: post #23

This article confuses me. It seems to be calling for FSF to think about addressing the needs of non-free software.

I think it is calling for the FSF to think about addressing a potential unwanted fragmentation of the free software community over opinions on ethical uses of software and solutions based on restriction from licenses.

The FSF has never viewed anyone who wants exceptions to copyleft as being part of their community to begin with.

Even something simple like the JSON license is something that the FSF sees as fundamentally incompatible with their values.

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:JSON

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

#88

Post by jcims »

breck wrote: post #79
jcims wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a side note, IMHO 'intellectual property' and the associated concept that ideas can be owned is gross enough that you don't need to take it any further. Again my opinion, but calling it 'slavery' moves into the realm of histrionics and to me undermines your overall position. The fact that you can thread a few needles to make the leap doesn't really justify where you land, especially while there are people suffer…

I think the term "intellectual property" is like when someone pisses on you and calls it "rain". It makes no sense. The idea if I was on an island and can't share freely share some ideas of yours that you hold the "copyright" has zero correlation with any notion of property, and is much better described as slavery -- a form of control over my behavior. > especially while there are people suffering actual physical sla…

I'm out. Hit me up when 'slavery' just doesn't deliver the punch you're after and you move on to intellectual genocide.

We're basically in the verbal equivalent of the audio loudness wars. There's no dynamic range left in our speech, everything is theft, hate, rape, violence, racism, fascism and of course slavery on some ever increasing but poorly articulated spectrum.

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

#89

Post by DangitBobby »

daenz wrote: post #57

I'm the author of some popular open source software, but I don't have any illusions about the relative ease of building my software. This author sounds like they are trying throw their weight around, but I'm not sure they realize how much software is easily reproducible, given the right incentives, with nothing more than a spec. Open source is a convenience, and that's why people use it. Pretending that you can have…

If you are making a new missile system and all of the free (as in beer) software you want says you can't use it to kill people, then you suddenly have to pay a lot more money to make your missile system. That seems like a good thing to me.

I don't see how you could claim that it wouldn't be influencial if this became standard practice.

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

#90

Post by UncleEntity »

jraph wrote: post #12

Interesting article. The problem of ethical use of something is not limited to software. When you get any tangible object, you don’t usually get usage restrictions from a license. So, if this is a problem to solve, I think that the solution should be sought more generally, not restricting the scope to software. (edit: and not to an individual software, which would be a weak way of "preventing" an unethical practice a…

> Usage of tangible objects is restricted by law.

A company can refuse to sell you a product if they don't agree with what you're going to do with it but they can't do anything at all if you somehow legally get ahold of it through secondary means.

Same with sold copyrighted works through the first sale doctrine (and this carries over to patents as well).

Software has seemed to have carved itself out a special niche where you don't actually own the product so the producers can dictate what you can and can not do with it after "first sale" since they don't really sell (or grant) you anything other than the right to use the product.

Post reply on HN