4 ms·

RMS' use of "free" is very well defined in terms of software (see: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). You

by ch 11y ago

RMS' use of "free" is very well defined in terms of software (see: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). You are arguing his definition of free, but that isn't up for debate here. RMS may be pedantic, but I'd disagree that makes him an asshole.

haroldp 11y ago
RMS saying that other developers have a different concept of software freedom is reasonable. RMS saying that the difference is important, and his idea of software freedom is reasonable and worth debating. Saying that other developers, "don't talk about freedom" because they use a different license is first class assholitry.
- ch 11y ago
  No it's just his same argument as ever. The GPL specifically addresses RMS' issues of software freedom. Choosing a different license ignores the topic of software freedom as defined by the FSF. That's all he is saying. Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It's not impossible but much more complex than if you just have a EULA. That said if you remove that difficulty you neuter the GPL and weaken the point of software freedom. I get why RMS pisses people off. He doesn't keep arguing for using the GPL to be an asshole, but because he thinks software users are more important than software developers. Perhaps most developers feel differently?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person. Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable. Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software. See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
    - ch 11y ago
      Yeah. iPhone on a train is not an ideal way to have an Internet argument. My point was it complicates the business model of selling software artifacts since the GPL does not prevent downstream dissemination of the source so long as the GPL is not violated. So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. I suppose one might argue the GPL holds hostage a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers. But well that's really the point. And I think that's what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > And I think that [a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers is] what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source. If I've correctly characterized your statement, I can't agree with it. RMS was originally motivated by his sudden inability to get access to the code for the driver for their computer lab's fancy laser printer to fix an embarrassingly bad bug that was wasting a bunch of other people's time. Many people prefer open source software because the guaranteed availability of source code helps to keep software that BigCos would no longer maintain (for whatever reason) alive, or dramatically improve software that companies can't be arsed to get right. [0] > So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. Eh? AFAICT, the model still stands. If you've written everything in house, dual-license it. If you've not, and if you're writing software for BigCos, [1] put a clause in your support contract that stipulates that for the next X years, $CLIENT will upgrade to $LATEST_VERSION after $REASONABLE_TIME_PERIOD and will not use older versions, or else suffer termination of the support contract and monetary penalties. I mean, lots of people pay for (and keep upgrading) RHEL rather than use Centos or Scientific Linux. [0] Ferinstance, DD-WRT and OpenWRT have been really, really good for the state of home WiFi router security. [1] Which -frankly- is the only place I would expect to find such a license.
- emn13 11y ago
  It's more reasonable that your stance here. You can quibble about how to define freedom, but given that RMS includes freedom from future vendor lock-in, it's entirely reasonable for him to say that other developers don't talk about freedom (as he means it) - because they don't. It's not hypothetical - BSD-derived code has been used in closed-source operating systems (both windows and notably macos) and lots of other software. By using BSD over GPL you're choosing to make it easy for many people to use your code, even if that use eventually may support closed-source lock-in. Since most developers dabble in open source mostly as a prestige project, that's a reasonable choice - you're not doing it to prevent software monopolies or lock in, are you? So no, you don't care about freedom, exactly as RMS says. Most people are probably doing it for recognition by their peers and because they're interested in solving the problem at hand, and compromising on those two points for a slim chance that you might contribute to a more pervasively free software future sounds like a risky bet. None of the two minor projects I wrote and support use (L)GPL.
  - haroldp 11y ago
    > it's entirely reasonable for him to say that other developers don't talk about freedom (as he means it) - because they don't. This is complete nonsense. Clang is replacing GCC in many BSD-licensed projects exactly because they feel it is more free than GCC. You don't have to agree that they are right, but saying they aren't talking about it is obnoxious and false.
detaro 11y ago
IMHO claiming that a multi-faceted word like "freedom" is "trade-marked" to only mean one specific kind of freedom is a sure way to provoke misunderstandings and conflicts. Especially since it is generally seen as a good thing, so claiming other people don't respect it (because they mean something different when they use it) is going to piss them off. See: every discussion of GPL and "freedom" in a public forum ever. One might think everybody is sick of these arguments already, especially since they are so predictable, but apparently it always stings some people enough.

by ch 11y ago

haroldp 11y ago

RMS saying that other developers have a different concept of software freedom is reasonable. RMS saying that the difference is important, and his idea of software freedom is reasonable and worth debating. Saying that other developers, "don't talk about freedom" because they use a different license is first class assholitry.

ch 11y ago
No it's just his same argument as ever. The GPL specifically addresses RMS' issues of software freedom. Choosing a different license ignores the topic of software freedom as defined by the FSF. That's all he is saying. Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It's not impossible but much more complex than if you just have a EULA. That said if you remove that difficulty you neuter the GPL and weaken the point of software freedom. I get why RMS pisses people off. He doesn't keep arguing for using the GPL to be an asshole, but because he thinks software users are more important than software developers. Perhaps most developers feel differently?
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person. Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable. Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software. See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
  - ch 11y ago
    Yeah. iPhone on a train is not an ideal way to have an Internet argument. My point was it complicates the business model of selling software artifacts since the GPL does not prevent downstream dissemination of the source so long as the GPL is not violated. So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. I suppose one might argue the GPL holds hostage a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers. But well that's really the point. And I think that's what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > And I think that [a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers is] what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source. If I've correctly characterized your statement, I can't agree with it. RMS was originally motivated by his sudden inability to get access to the code for the driver for their computer lab's fancy laser printer to fix an embarrassingly bad bug that was wasting a bunch of other people's time. Many people prefer open source software because the guaranteed availability of source code helps to keep software that BigCos would no longer maintain (for whatever reason) alive, or dramatically improve software that companies can't be arsed to get right. [0] > So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. Eh? AFAICT, the model still stands. If you've written everything in house, dual-license it. If you've not, and if you're writing software for BigCos, [1] put a clause in your support contract that stipulates that for the next X years, $CLIENT will upgrade to $LATEST_VERSION after $REASONABLE_TIME_PERIOD and will not use older versions, or else suffer termination of the support contract and monetary penalties. I mean, lots of people pay for (and keep upgrading) RHEL rather than use Centos or Scientific Linux. [0] Ferinstance, DD-WRT and OpenWRT have been really, really good for the state of home WiFi router security. [1] Which -frankly- is the only place I would expect to find such a license.
emn13 11y ago
It's more reasonable that your stance here. You can quibble about how to define freedom, but given that RMS includes freedom from future vendor lock-in, it's entirely reasonable for him to say that other developers don't talk about freedom (as he means it) - because they don't. It's not hypothetical - BSD-derived code has been used in closed-source operating systems (both windows and notably macos) and lots of other software. By using BSD over GPL you're choosing to make it easy for many people to use your code, even if that use eventually may support closed-source lock-in. Since most developers dabble in open source mostly as a prestige project, that's a reasonable choice - you're not doing it to prevent software monopolies or lock in, are you? So no, you don't care about freedom, exactly as RMS says. Most people are probably doing it for recognition by their peers and because they're interested in solving the problem at hand, and compromising on those two points for a slim chance that you might contribute to a more pervasively free software future sounds like a risky bet. None of the two minor projects I wrote and support use (L)GPL.
- haroldp 11y ago
  > it's entirely reasonable for him to say that other developers don't talk about freedom (as he means it) - because they don't. This is complete nonsense. Clang is replacing GCC in many BSD-licensed projects exactly because they feel it is more free than GCC. You don't have to agree that they are right, but saying they aren't talking about it is obnoxious and false.

detaro 11y ago

IMHO claiming that a multi-faceted word like "freedom" is "trade-marked" to only mean one specific kind of freedom is a sure way to provoke misunderstandings and conflicts. Especially since it is generally seen as a good thing, so claiming other people don't respect it (because they mean something different when they use it) is going to piss them off. See: every discussion of GPL and "freedom" in a public forum ever. One might think everybody is sick of these arguments already, especially since they are so predictable, but apparently it always stings some people enough.