6 ms·

> I can't sympathize much with those app developers, since they are making proprietary software. They all deserve to fail. What a shitty, shitty attitude.

by chasing 10y ago

simbalion 10y ago
Not at all.
Dylan16807 10y ago
It's not the worst attitude in the world. Wanting a kind of business to fail is not wishing harm on the actual people. But it ignores all the people making apps that do have open licensing.
- reflexive 10y ago
  Unfortunately, Apple's own App Store Terms of Service don't allow use of GPL software on iOS. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
  - jgord 10y ago
    wow.. that seems unduly aggressive and unnecessary, almost spiteful. If its not illegal, then perhaps it should be.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Yes, that's obnoxious, but you can use MIT or dual license.
  - josephg 10y ago
    I'm confused. I use dozens of iOS apps which are built on react-native (BSD). Signal messenger (which I use daily) is GPLv3 licensed. And I don't know about the client code but I bet 95% of the apps I use depend on GPL code on the servers which power them. The majority of Apple's stack is opensource, too. Take a look through http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/ some time. The kernel and huge swathes of their ecosystem are opensource. I'm writing this comment in chrome, which has millions of lines of opensourced webkit code in it, written by paid Apple engineers. And compiled in clang/llvm, which is developed, maintained by Apple. Oh, and its opensource too. I'm totally confused by the argument that Apple hates opensource. They depend on it. They give back. They're a good citizen. They just aren't huge fans of the GPL, but so what? Neither am I. Neither is Rust (MIT), or Golang (BSD) or the NodeJS community (90%+ BSD/ISC). Opensource simply doesn't need the GPL to bloom in today's world.
    - swhipple 10y ago
      While open source software and free software refer to roughly the same set of software, the ideology is different. Open source is about collaboratively building tools for developers and businesses, or simply because collaboration produces better software. The software is often released under permissive terms. Apple participates in open source projects. Free software is focused on the end user having freedom over their software by ensuring that they have the ability to read, modify, and redistribute it. Apple does not give these rights to users of their platforms. The post that was linked was the FSF, which argues from the free software perspective.
    - JohnTHaller 10y ago
      Anything GPL licensed that is on the iOS App Store is in violation of the GPL unless they own the copyright to all of the code in the app and are effectively dual licensing it. That's the way it's been explained to me due to the restrictive way that the App Store agreement is structured (more restrictively than the Play Store, Amazon App Store, etc).
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "GPL" and "Free Software" are not the same thing. Not even the FSF claims that. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... Note that the BSD license, Apache license, MIT license (which the FSF calls the X11 license), etc. are all considered Free Software licenses by the FSF and are okay in the App Store.
xlayn 10y ago
Just like that guy who was open about going thermonuclear on free software.... I mean the same who "took" several ideas from Xerox and got around taxes and became rich by creating extremely profitable products built by people super uber poor on China. http://techrights.org/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-exposed/ http://techrights.org/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-exposed/
musesum 10y ago
I was going to say exactly the same thing. I've been spending much of the last year developing some open source code (a data flow ontology). Was thinking of using GPLv3. But, now leaning towards MIT. The first app to use it will be a visual music synth for iOS. Ironically, Stallman just reminded me about GPL's philosophical baggage.
- bitL 10y ago
  Once some company rips your visual synth off, files patents protecting stuff you programmed, makes money off your work without giving you back nothing and sues you, you might understand why the baggage in GPL3 is necessary - it copes with the real world not with a world full of buddies cheering for each other.
  - rakoo 10y ago
    This is not what the GPL is about. It is built to protect the user's freedom, not the developer's freedom.
    - bitL 10y ago
      AFAIK it's both; for developer the requirement of a company to give all changes back to community means they won't be cheated on by stealing their work, not giving them credits and making business off their work for free. They have to contribute back if they decide to use a developer's work, raising their credit/fame that developer can directly capitalize on.
      - rakoo 10y ago
        No, you're describing something much closer to the patent system which is not the same as Open Source and even further than the Free-Software-As-Defined-By-GPL view. The latter explicitely requires all changes to be available to the user of the software, but doesn't require anything at all regarding the original developer(s). That those developers get the changes back is purely a demonstration of the company's goodwill, or it may also happen because the original developer also happen to be using the modified version, but that's not always the case (example: set-top boxes with modified Linux version. If you're not using one, you're not entitled to the modified Linux kernel, even if you are a Linux contributor) You're saying that the aim is to prevent somebody to make money on your work. This is absolutely not the goal of Open Source or Free Software. There is no issue in somebody else getting rich by using your work. A rough summary of both would be: * Open Source: Stop reinventing the wheel every time. Somebody writes an implementation of a javascript interpreter, and everybody who needs one just uses it instead of writing one from scratch. If they find ways to make it better, they share their knowledge so that others can build on top. * Free Software: As a user, I want to be able to understand how the software works, so I can fix it myself or ask somebody I know and trust to fix it if it's broken, or improve it if there are ways to do it. The commercial side is neither seen as positive or negative; it's completely orthogonal to the question. My personal opinion is that I don't see why I should prevent somebody to earn money based on my work. To think that a software is enough to make a business and you could have made as much money as them if you just sold it is misunderstanding the domain. If they're better at it, why would I prevent them ? Note that regarding Open Source and Free Software, I don't have a problem with any of those views. It's just important to understand the difference in philosophy if we want to understand why both styles exist and why some might choose one "side" over the other. I'll agree that in practice both styles are largely overlapping.
duncan_bayne 10y ago
Apple has made it impossible to ship GPL'd Free Software to iOS devices. I'd say they _started_ the 'shitty attitude' war.
- _ak 10y ago
  Or maybe they just talked to no-nonsense lawyers that don't just have an agenda of pushing forward the GPL.
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    I don't understand your comment. Apple designed their distribution system in such a way that it precludes shipping GPLd apps. What does that have to do with lawyers?
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Yep. Stallman is very smart: I respect his opinions, and can understand where he's coming from, but he's a dick about them.
- jmspring 10y ago
  He's had the same views for many years. He just reintroduces them based on the popular closed nuance of the day. In the 90s, it was Microsoft, not Apple. He has valid points, but the general world of software is much more open and diverse and companies are doing things in the public more -- on github, etc. There is still a need to make money to pay people, and, well, there will be closed source and other paths the pay that way.
jgord 10y ago
sure, but I would recommend to keep reading in any case - Stallman is perhaps more 'pure' or 'left' than most of us on software rights, but I think his worldview is interesting and he does raise worthy points. It could be we are thanking him in 30 years, or moaning that we didn't listen more. I certainly feel the software user agreements are far more onerous than I would have expected 20 years ago.. and the surveillance more extreme. I wish I had listened more then to what Stallman had to say. Even if almost all programmers believe that they should have the right to run any software on devices which they own - we don't seem to have any organised political / legal movement that would bring that into law - large companies have almost all the power. How can we make sure that web apps aren't also censored on mobile devices in future? If Apple or Google decided to do that, the small user base doesn't have much power to fight back, and yet we all would have lost an important freedom.
sotojuan 10y ago
What about his "I'm not glad he's dead, I'm glad he's gone" about Jobs' death?
- meira 10y ago
  What is wrong with it?
  - _ak 10y ago
    It conveys the message that he actually ia glad about his death, because he's glad about the effects and implications of his death. RMS is a proper sociopath.
    - pritambaral 10y ago
      >> I'm not glad he's dead How is the message still "he actually ia[sic] glad about his death"?
      - _ak 10y ago
        "I'm glad he's gone" is a clear statement about an effect of his death.
    - rakoo 10y ago
      He's not glad about his death -- that's in the quotation for crying out loud. If Steve Jobs had been prevented to do what he did without dying, RMS would have been equally glad (even more, because Jobs wouldn't have died) It's also a reference to the exact same phrase that was used against a corrupted mayor.
shpx 10y ago
> I can't sympathize with plantation owners, since they enslave people. They all deserve to fail. If he thinks he's a visionary ahead of his time then he doesn't owe it to anyone to be nice about it. I prefer people say what they think.

> I can't sympathize much with those app developers, since they are making proprietary software. They all deserve to fail. What a shitty, shitty attitude.

by chasing 10y ago

> I can't sympathize much with those app developers, since they are making proprietary software. They all deserve to fail. What a shitty, shitty attitude.

simbalion 10y ago

Not at all.

Dylan16807 10y ago

It's not the worst attitude in the world. Wanting a kind of business to fail is not wishing harm on the actual people. But it ignores all the people making apps that do have open licensing.

reflexive 10y ago
Unfortunately, Apple's own App Store Terms of Service don't allow use of GPL software on iOS. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
- jgord 10y ago
  wow.. that seems unduly aggressive and unnecessary, almost spiteful. If its not illegal, then perhaps it should be.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Yes, that's obnoxious, but you can use MIT or dual license.
- josephg 10y ago
  I'm confused. I use dozens of iOS apps which are built on react-native (BSD). Signal messenger (which I use daily) is GPLv3 licensed. And I don't know about the client code but I bet 95% of the apps I use depend on GPL code on the servers which power them. The majority of Apple's stack is opensource, too. Take a look through http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/ some time. The kernel and huge swathes of their ecosystem are opensource. I'm writing this comment in chrome, which has millions of lines of opensourced webkit code in it, written by paid Apple engineers. And compiled in clang/llvm, which is developed, maintained by Apple. Oh, and its opensource too. I'm totally confused by the argument that Apple hates opensource. They depend on it. They give back. They're a good citizen. They just aren't huge fans of the GPL, but so what? Neither am I. Neither is Rust (MIT), or Golang (BSD) or the NodeJS community (90%+ BSD/ISC). Opensource simply doesn't need the GPL to bloom in today's world.
  - swhipple 10y ago
    While open source software and free software refer to roughly the same set of software, the ideology is different. Open source is about collaboratively building tools for developers and businesses, or simply because collaboration produces better software. The software is often released under permissive terms. Apple participates in open source projects. Free software is focused on the end user having freedom over their software by ensuring that they have the ability to read, modify, and redistribute it. Apple does not give these rights to users of their platforms. The post that was linked was the FSF, which argues from the free software perspective.
  - JohnTHaller 10y ago
    Anything GPL licensed that is on the iOS App Store is in violation of the GPL unless they own the copyright to all of the code in the app and are effectively dual licensing it. That's the way it's been explained to me due to the restrictive way that the App Store agreement is structured (more restrictively than the Play Store, Amazon App Store, etc).
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "GPL" and "Free Software" are not the same thing. Not even the FSF claims that. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... Note that the BSD license, Apache license, MIT license (which the FSF calls the X11 license), etc. are all considered Free Software licenses by the FSF and are okay in the App Store.

xlayn 10y ago

Just like that guy who was open about going thermonuclear on free software.... I mean the same who "took" several ideas from Xerox and got around taxes and became rich by creating extremely profitable products built by people super uber poor on China. http://techrights.org/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-exposed/ http://techrights.org/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-exposed/

musesum 10y ago

I was going to say exactly the same thing. I've been spending much of the last year developing some open source code (a data flow ontology). Was thinking of using GPLv3. But, now leaning towards MIT. The first app to use it will be a visual music synth for iOS. Ironically, Stallman just reminded me about GPL's philosophical baggage.

bitL 10y ago
Once some company rips your visual synth off, files patents protecting stuff you programmed, makes money off your work without giving you back nothing and sues you, you might understand why the baggage in GPL3 is necessary - it copes with the real world not with a world full of buddies cheering for each other.
- rakoo 10y ago
  This is not what the GPL is about. It is built to protect the user's freedom, not the developer's freedom.
  - bitL 10y ago
    AFAIK it's both; for developer the requirement of a company to give all changes back to community means they won't be cheated on by stealing their work, not giving them credits and making business off their work for free. They have to contribute back if they decide to use a developer's work, raising their credit/fame that developer can directly capitalize on.
    - rakoo 10y ago
      No, you're describing something much closer to the patent system which is not the same as Open Source and even further than the Free-Software-As-Defined-By-GPL view. The latter explicitely requires all changes to be available to the user of the software, but doesn't require anything at all regarding the original developer(s). That those developers get the changes back is purely a demonstration of the company's goodwill, or it may also happen because the original developer also happen to be using the modified version, but that's not always the case (example: set-top boxes with modified Linux version. If you're not using one, you're not entitled to the modified Linux kernel, even if you are a Linux contributor) You're saying that the aim is to prevent somebody to make money on your work. This is absolutely not the goal of Open Source or Free Software. There is no issue in somebody else getting rich by using your work. A rough summary of both would be: * Open Source: Stop reinventing the wheel every time. Somebody writes an implementation of a javascript interpreter, and everybody who needs one just uses it instead of writing one from scratch. If they find ways to make it better, they share their knowledge so that others can build on top. * Free Software: As a user, I want to be able to understand how the software works, so I can fix it myself or ask somebody I know and trust to fix it if it's broken, or improve it if there are ways to do it. The commercial side is neither seen as positive or negative; it's completely orthogonal to the question. My personal opinion is that I don't see why I should prevent somebody to earn money based on my work. To think that a software is enough to make a business and you could have made as much money as them if you just sold it is misunderstanding the domain. If they're better at it, why would I prevent them ? Note that regarding Open Source and Free Software, I don't have a problem with any of those views. It's just important to understand the difference in philosophy if we want to understand why both styles exist and why some might choose one "side" over the other. I'll agree that in practice both styles are largely overlapping.

duncan_bayne 10y ago

Apple has made it impossible to ship GPL'd Free Software to iOS devices. I'd say they _started_ the 'shitty attitude' war.

_ak 10y ago
Or maybe they just talked to no-nonsense lawyers that don't just have an agenda of pushing forward the GPL.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  I don't understand your comment. Apple designed their distribution system in such a way that it precludes shipping GPLd apps. What does that have to do with lawyers?

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

Yep. Stallman is very smart: I respect his opinions, and can understand where he's coming from, but he's a dick about them.

jmspring 10y ago
He's had the same views for many years. He just reintroduces them based on the popular closed nuance of the day. In the 90s, it was Microsoft, not Apple. He has valid points, but the general world of software is much more open and diverse and companies are doing things in the public more -- on github, etc. There is still a need to make money to pay people, and, well, there will be closed source and other paths the pay that way.

jgord 10y ago

sure, but I would recommend to keep reading in any case - Stallman is perhaps more 'pure' or 'left' than most of us on software rights, but I think his worldview is interesting and he does raise worthy points. It could be we are thanking him in 30 years, or moaning that we didn't listen more. I certainly feel the software user agreements are far more onerous than I would have expected 20 years ago.. and the surveillance more extreme. I wish I had listened more then to what Stallman had to say. Even if almost all programmers believe that they should have the right to run any software on devices which they own - we don't seem to have any organised political / legal movement that would bring that into law - large companies have almost all the power. How can we make sure that web apps aren't also censored on mobile devices in future? If Apple or Google decided to do that, the small user base doesn't have much power to fight back, and yet we all would have lost an important freedom.

sotojuan 10y ago

What about his "I'm not glad he's dead, I'm glad he's gone" about Jobs' death?

meira 10y ago
What is wrong with it?
- _ak 10y ago
  It conveys the message that he actually ia glad about his death, because he's glad about the effects and implications of his death. RMS is a proper sociopath.
  - pritambaral 10y ago
    >> I'm not glad he's dead How is the message still "he actually ia[sic] glad about his death"?
    - _ak 10y ago
      "I'm glad he's gone" is a clear statement about an effect of his death.
  - rakoo 10y ago
    He's not glad about his death -- that's in the quotation for crying out loud. If Steve Jobs had been prevented to do what he did without dying, RMS would have been equally glad (even more, because Jobs wouldn't have died) It's also a reference to the exact same phrase that was used against a corrupted mayor.

shpx 10y ago

> I can't sympathize with plantation owners, since they enslave people. They all deserve to fail. If he thinks he's a visionary ahead of his time then he doesn't owe it to anyone to be nice about it. I prefer people say what they think.