4 ms·

Free software existed before the GPL. Pretty sure linux would still have happened without it. People are moving to a web based architecture all the time. The a

by axod 17y ago

Free software existed before the GPL. Pretty sure linux would still have happened without it. People are moving to a web based architecture all the time. The amount of software people actually download and install is reducing, so to some extent the whole idea of OSS for most people (I believe) is becoming less important. Meanwhile Richard Stallman doesn't even use the web. I just don't see it as that relevant anymore.

Jach 17y ago
I have a feeling it's only going to get more relevant, because now the software is moving toward the web, it is insanely convenient and easy to lock-in users and restrict freedoms. There are of course a freaking huge number of problems with the idea of open-sourcing the entirety of many website backends. I think there can be great discussion though on various models. GitHub offering web hosting instead of just repo hosting seems like a possibility.
- axod 17y ago
  >> "it is insanely convenient and easy to lock-in users and restrict freedoms." I agree, but is that really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how open source can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does open sourcing fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free source code. Any one of us could clone facebook if we had enough time and determination. Open sourcing is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own favorite open source tools, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because it's open source, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
  - idiopathic 17y ago
    With the (welcome) move to web architecture, free software is not as important as free data, i.e. the freedom to move your data to another provider. We may all be slaves, but we should have the freedom to choose our master. Like you, I would also rather that website owners had real incentives to please their users. I disagree on the solution: data lock-in _removes_ the website owner's incentive, instead they can just rely on the fact that you are stuck with them, rather than pleased with them.
    - axod 17y ago
      Good point, and I agree. People should always be free to get at the data they have on a website, and move to an alternative website. That's certainly something worth fighting for.
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        Is locked in data really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how free data can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does free data fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free data. Any one of us could clone facebook's massive social network if we had enough time and determination. Letting users own their data is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own data, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because its data is free, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
        axod 17y ago
        I don't see how you seem to equate users data, with source code. The two are entirely different things.
  - 17y ago
sfk 17y ago
The (A)GPL is still very relevant. The whole point of free software (in the GNU sense) is that you should have complete access to the sources of a software system. In the case of a web application, this includes server side software. No matter what some vocal AGPL opponents here say, this opinion is not exclusively held by fundamentalists: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15855 http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15855
- elblanco 17y ago
  This is true, I think RMS is as close to certifiable as one can get, but the point of having source available for inspection is a very important one in certain contexts. A quick example, voting machines, for quite a while the electronic voting machine sources were completely closed and the companies fought in court from having to reveal the source. When the source was finally reviewed it was found to be a mess and could possibly turn an election one way or the other. http://www.pcworld.com/article/135461/diebold_voting_machines_vulnerable_to_virus_attack.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/135461/diebold_voting_machine... This is one of those areas where Freedom and Free Software intersect in a way where Stallman's philosophy makes a heck of a lot of sense. On the flip side, not browsing the web for "personal reasons" sounds like somebody who also has tin foil blocking all their windows.

by axod 17y ago

Jach 17y ago

I have a feeling it's only going to get more relevant, because now the software is moving toward the web, it is insanely convenient and easy to lock-in users and restrict freedoms. There are of course a freaking huge number of problems with the idea of open-sourcing the entirety of many website backends. I think there can be great discussion though on various models. GitHub offering web hosting instead of just repo hosting seems like a possibility.

axod 17y ago
>> "it is insanely convenient and easy to lock-in users and restrict freedoms." I agree, but is that really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how open source can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does open sourcing fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free source code. Any one of us could clone facebook if we had enough time and determination. Open sourcing is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own favorite open source tools, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because it's open source, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
- idiopathic 17y ago
  With the (welcome) move to web architecture, free software is not as important as free data, i.e. the freedom to move your data to another provider. We may all be slaves, but we should have the freedom to choose our master. Like you, I would also rather that website owners had real incentives to please their users. I disagree on the solution: data lock-in _removes_ the website owner's incentive, instead they can just rely on the fact that you are stuck with them, rather than pleased with them.
  - axod 17y ago
    Good point, and I agree. People should always be free to get at the data they have on a website, and move to an alternative website. That's certainly something worth fighting for.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      Is locked in data really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive. I don't see how free data can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does free data fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free data. Any one of us could clone facebook's massive social network if we had enough time and determination. Letting users own their data is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own data, but I think it makes less sense on the web. As I've said before, I don't use X because its data is free, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care. I think that's all that matters really.
      - axod 17y ago
        I don't see how you seem to equate users data, with source code. The two are entirely different things.
- 17y ago

sfk 17y ago

The (A)GPL is still very relevant. The whole point of free software (in the GNU sense) is that you should have complete access to the sources of a software system. In the case of a web application, this includes server side software. No matter what some vocal AGPL opponents here say, this opinion is not exclusively held by fundamentalists: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15855 http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15855

elblanco 17y ago
This is true, I think RMS is as close to certifiable as one can get, but the point of having source available for inspection is a very important one in certain contexts. A quick example, voting machines, for quite a while the electronic voting machine sources were completely closed and the companies fought in court from having to reveal the source. When the source was finally reviewed it was found to be a mess and could possibly turn an election one way or the other. http://www.pcworld.com/article/135461/diebold_voting_machines_vulnerable_to_virus_attack.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/135461/diebold_voting_machine... This is one of those areas where Freedom and Free Software intersect in a way where Stallman's philosophy makes a heck of a lot of sense. On the flip side, not browsing the web for "personal reasons" sounds like somebody who also has tin foil blocking all their windows.