4 ms·

> You see, the biggest advantage of open-source, its raison d'être if you will, is the possibility to fork It might be the raison d'être of open source, but th

> You see, the biggest advantage of open-source, its raison d'être if you will, is the possibility to fork It might be the raison d'être of open source, but the goal of free software is preserving users' freedom, not ensuring usefulness of software in some commercial proprietary context. That seems to be at the root of your disagreement with FSF. You simply care about different things and therefore prioritize differently; everything else is secondary. FSF does not aim for popularity, convenience, or playing well with one's commercial interests as its primary goal.

bad_user 11y ago
The right to fork is a prerequisite for users' freedom and without it the software is not free. The right to fork is about having complete control over the software that you're using. And it's usually a fact - either you have that right, or you don't, instead of being a warm and fuzzy social ideal, like the issue of "users freedom" tends to be. Because the second you said "users freedom", you're in danger, because what constitutes a "user" is unclear. Is a user a person that pushes buttons providing input for your program to produce its destined output? Or can a user be a programmer as well? Because depending on its needs, different users want different freedoms. And for example I do not consider AGPL to be open-source (or free software for that matter) because modifying code without redistributing the binaries is simple usage for a developer, which means AGPL imposes restrictions on usage, being a freaking EULA. But going back to our subject, dual licensing, take a look at projects that are dual licensed and usually you'll notice that the choice of the license had nothing to do with users freedom, quite the contrary, after all, without serious constraints dual licensing wouldn't work.
- admax88q 11y ago
  What constitues a user is not unclear. A user is both someone who uses the compiled software (pushes the button in your example) or a developer capable of modifying the software. A developer doesn't need the freedom to redistribute the software to other users without also respecting their freedoms. Dual licensing does nothing to hurt freedom, as a user of the GPL licensed software your freedom is protect, both to use the software, and to modify it for your usage. Needing to assign copyright to make upstream contributions may hurt the rate at which the upstream project develops, but in no way hurts your freedom.
- admax88q 11y ago
  What constitues a user is not unclear. A user is both someone who uses the compiled software (pushes the button in your example) or a developer capable of modifying the software. A developer doesn't need the freedom to redistribute the software to other users without also respecting their freedoms. Dual licensing does nothing to hurt freedom, as a user of the GPL licensed software your freedom is protect, both to use the software, and to modify it for your usage. Needing to assign copyright to make upstream contributions may hurt the rate at which the upstream project develops, but in no way hurts your freedom.

bad_user 11y ago

The right to fork is a prerequisite for users' freedom and without it the software is not free. The right to fork is about having complete control over the software that you're using. And it's usually a fact - either you have that right, or you don't, instead of being a warm and fuzzy social ideal, like the issue of "users freedom" tends to be. Because the second you said "users freedom", you're in danger, because what constitutes a "user" is unclear. Is a user a person that pushes buttons providing input for your program to produce its destined output? Or can a user be a programmer as well? Because depending on its needs, different users want different freedoms. And for example I do not consider AGPL to be open-source (or free software for that matter) because modifying code without redistributing the binaries is simple usage for a developer, which means AGPL imposes restrictions on usage, being a freaking EULA. But going back to our subject, dual licensing, take a look at projects that are dual licensed and usually you'll notice that the choice of the license had nothing to do with users freedom, quite the contrary, after all, without serious constraints dual licensing wouldn't work.

admax88q 11y ago
What constitues a user is not unclear. A user is both someone who uses the compiled software (pushes the button in your example) or a developer capable of modifying the software. A developer doesn't need the freedom to redistribute the software to other users without also respecting their freedoms. Dual licensing does nothing to hurt freedom, as a user of the GPL licensed software your freedom is protect, both to use the software, and to modify it for your usage. Needing to assign copyright to make upstream contributions may hurt the rate at which the upstream project develops, but in no way hurts your freedom.
admax88q 11y ago
What constitues a user is not unclear. A user is both someone who uses the compiled software (pushes the button in your example) or a developer capable of modifying the software. A developer doesn't need the freedom to redistribute the software to other users without also respecting their freedoms. Dual licensing does nothing to hurt freedom, as a user of the GPL licensed software your freedom is protect, both to use the software, and to modify it for your usage. Needing to assign copyright to make upstream contributions may hurt the rate at which the upstream project develops, but in no way hurts your freedom.