3 ms·

Start using GPLv3 and AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of the last decade, and stop listening to the divisive arguments from pragmatists who

by zanny 11y ago

Start using GPLv3 and AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of the last decade, and stop listening to the divisive arguments from pragmatists who don't care about the ethical consequences of permissive licensing when it comes to these kinds of things. Even if you want to get post-copyright (I certainly do) we don't improve the situation fueling the copyright lobby with technological force multipliers through our own hard work. Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense.

g1n016399 11y ago
> Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense. ... and support the GPL compliance efforts of organisations like Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
duaneb 11y ago
Gplv3 comes with a ton of baggage, though, and it still isn't clear how enforceable agplv3 is. I suspect better content licensing would be best--have a license that forces any distributor to offer media that can be played with FOSS software.
Sanddancer 11y ago
How will GPLv3 prevent smartphone, smarttv, etc apps from using DRM? About all GPLv3 and AGPLv3 would do is give a slightly smaller corpus of software to use in implementing. How much software did Apple open up when GCC went GPLv3?
- zanny 11y ago
  Apple has never included the GPLv3 version of GCC on OSX themselves. For years they were shipping the outdated last GPLv2 release, and then they put all their effort into LLVM to replace GCC entirely because they refused to give up their DRM and Tivoization. GPLv3 has this clause: Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden. And has a definition corollary: Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it. The GPL "stops" apps from using DRM because to use DRM is to violate the license and be liable for copyright infringement. On OSX specifically, I imagine the Apple had some leaky GPLv3 code somewhere, because they open sourced a lot of Darwin between 2007-2010.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    That's my point. The GPLv3 did less than nothing in encouraging reasonable sharing, it made companies wall things off more. When you're even a moderate sized company, there comes a point where it's easier to just write your own than to deal with the restrictions software licenses bring. It's happened with a ton of commercial code, and it happens with Free code as well.
    - belorn 11y ago
      Don't tell Blizzard that. They use a tons of free libraries in their flag ship products, including LGPLv3 in Starcraft 2. Im sure they would just love to delay the release date swith a year or two in order to avoid FOSS licenses and rewrite their own XML parser, fonts, or HTML/CSS code parsers. That is, unless they can do cost-benefit. Some markets is just to competitive that you can't waste developer time in order to be afraid of licenses. The game market is very saturated, but there might be places where you can afford to entertain peoples fear.
anon1385 11y ago
> Start using AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of the last decade What if I care about freedom zero? AGPLv3 is incompatible with freedom zero. I'm not sure you can criticise other people for failing to care about ethical consequences when you are casually prepared to throw away one of the core principles of free software.

by zanny 11y ago

g1n016399 11y ago

> Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense. ... and support the GPL compliance efforts of organisations like Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

duaneb 11y ago

Gplv3 comes with a ton of baggage, though, and it still isn't clear how enforceable agplv3 is. I suspect better content licensing would be best--have a license that forces any distributor to offer media that can be played with FOSS software.

Sanddancer 11y ago

How will GPLv3 prevent smartphone, smarttv, etc apps from using DRM? About all GPLv3 and AGPLv3 would do is give a slightly smaller corpus of software to use in implementing. How much software did Apple open up when GCC went GPLv3?

zanny 11y ago
Apple has never included the GPLv3 version of GCC on OSX themselves. For years they were shipping the outdated last GPLv2 release, and then they put all their effort into LLVM to replace GCC entirely because they refused to give up their DRM and Tivoization. GPLv3 has this clause: Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden. And has a definition corollary: Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it. The GPL "stops" apps from using DRM because to use DRM is to violate the license and be liable for copyright infringement. On OSX specifically, I imagine the Apple had some leaky GPLv3 code somewhere, because they open sourced a lot of Darwin between 2007-2010.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  That's my point. The GPLv3 did less than nothing in encouraging reasonable sharing, it made companies wall things off more. When you're even a moderate sized company, there comes a point where it's easier to just write your own than to deal with the restrictions software licenses bring. It's happened with a ton of commercial code, and it happens with Free code as well.
  - belorn 11y ago
    Don't tell Blizzard that. They use a tons of free libraries in their flag ship products, including LGPLv3 in Starcraft 2. Im sure they would just love to delay the release date swith a year or two in order to avoid FOSS licenses and rewrite their own XML parser, fonts, or HTML/CSS code parsers. That is, unless they can do cost-benefit. Some markets is just to competitive that you can't waste developer time in order to be afraid of licenses. The game market is very saturated, but there might be places where you can afford to entertain peoples fear.

anon1385 11y ago

> Start using AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of the last decade What if I care about freedom zero? AGPLv3 is incompatible with freedom zero. I'm not sure you can criticise other people for failing to care about ethical consequences when you are casually prepared to throw away one of the core principles of free software.