6 ms·

Your view is developer centric. For someone that does not develop software, the restriction on distribution is irrelevant. The GPL is more free for the users.

by snarfy 10y ago

Your view is developer centric. For someone that does not develop software, the restriction on distribution is irrelevant. The GPL is more free for the users. BSD is more free for the developers. There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers.

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
This. Also, users are often unaware of what Open Source components are used in a software or a device they use. Organization reselling MIT/BSD products with some rebranding and marketing can mislead the users into thinking their products are entirely made from scratch. This: - prevents power users from getting in touch with the original developers and becoming active contributors (testing, bug reporting...) - discourages users from learning to code - prevents power users from getting features / fixes / security updates from the original developer - removes the opportunity for the original developers (and others) to receive donations from the users or be paid to work on the project - fragments the community
allendoerfer 10y ago
>There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers. The discrepancy would be even higher if you hinder the ability for developers to earn money through the GPL. Money has to come from somewhere, usually that is non-free software or ads. I wonder how much free or open source software is truly independent of non-free software. I would argue almost none. Many OSS developers work at a company producing non-free software, enabling them to create free software in their free time. The big foundations are supported by the big software companies. Most companies producing free software do so for a market of non-free software developers. If you decrease the freedom of developers you also decrease the ability for users to do anything, because there would be much less software. Software would be a small elite circle. The world is a complex place, fundamentalism very rarely accounts for that.
Karunamon 10y ago
What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer? Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due to lack of time or knowledge, what exactly is the benefit?
- davexunit 10y ago
  What use is the freedom of the press to someone who isn't a journalist?
  - GeoffKnauth 10y ago
    It's a benefit to readers / citizens to have information that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
    - davexunit 10y ago
      Correct! And it's a benefit to users to have software that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        <post type="devils-advocate"> Instead, it's controlled by an unaccountable mass of people who may or may not be working with their best interests in mind. Instead of abusing a user's wallet, they instead abuse their time, attention, or data. Off the top of my head, Ubuntu's Amazon integration, Freedesktop's push to Systemd all the things, Firefox's new page ads... </post> The difference between a corporation and a large FOSS project is limited to their goals and probably values. Both are generally subject to a central figurehead or committee who makes all the decisions and chooses how the project will evolve. I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical.
        catdog 10y ago
        > I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. But if that change is not that big or fundamental you can still apply a patch with relative ease. Thats already huge compared to most proprietary Software. > It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical. I disagree. It may not be always that easy in practice to take advantage of your freedom but that makes it not worthless. Maybe it's too much work for you to maintain a (partial) fork of the Linux kernel but if you find yourself a group of like minded people it may be perfectly possible. Free software also is by far unable to magically fix all of our societies problems but it is one tiny part of making the world better.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Stallman's view is even more developer-centric. Who cares about source code? Not most users. If the aim was to make software that's easily user-modifiable - user-modifiable, not developer-modifiable - free software has been a complete failure. There's certainly a net benefit in distributing software with free access to source code so it can be modified by experienced developers. But that has never been Stallman's stated aim. If Stallman and the FSF really cared about users - not developers - they'd have spent more time creating software systems that were user-editable. In fact the industry, including Stallman, has stampeded in the opposite direction. It's harder for ordinary users to make modifiable software now than it's ever been in the past. We no longer have HyperCard, VB and VBA are dying arts, and the insides of all operating systems - including Linux - are absolutely horrible environments for non-developers to work in. We don't even have BASIC or those make-your-own game systems we had in the 8-bit days. Those were bare minimum systems. Has it really been impossible to invent something better for more than 30 years? No one knows. But for all the rhetoric, the question interests Stallman as little as it interests the rest of the industry.
- davexunit 10y ago
  The GNU project boasts some of the most hackable software ever made. GNU Emacs is the most notable. RMS has been an advocate for languages like Lisp over languages like C because programs written in Lisp, like Emacs, are user extensible.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    > The GNU project boasts some of the most hackable software ever made. GNU Emacs is the most notable. Politics sometimes stops the hackablity https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8861360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8861360
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    If that were the case, how does that explain the "plugins for gcc" issue.
- bad_user 10y ago
bad_user 10y ago
Why should there exist a distinction between users and developers? If more people were educated in the basics of software development, enough to help them in their chosen profession and to understand the technology around them, those people wouldn't be so easy to abuse in the first place. Basically this line of thought is a huge mistake, playing on the tune of the software companies and state agencies that abuse people and break their freedoms. And in fact, I'm pretty sure that Stallman disagrees with you. After all, this distinction is why he was pissed off and started GNU and the GPL in the first place ;-)
Shorel 10y ago
Yet the developers are the ones who can and choose their software licenses. Without developers choosing BSD or MIT over GPL, GPL loses some of its influence.

by snarfy 10y ago

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago

This. Also, users are often unaware of what Open Source components are used in a software or a device they use. Organization reselling MIT/BSD products with some rebranding and marketing can mislead the users into thinking their products are entirely made from scratch. This: - prevents power users from getting in touch with the original developers and becoming active contributors (testing, bug reporting...) - discourages users from learning to code - prevents power users from getting features / fixes / security updates from the original developer - removes the opportunity for the original developers (and others) to receive donations from the users or be paid to work on the project - fragments the community

allendoerfer 10y ago

>There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers. The discrepancy would be even higher if you hinder the ability for developers to earn money through the GPL. Money has to come from somewhere, usually that is non-free software or ads. I wonder how much free or open source software is truly independent of non-free software. I would argue almost none. Many OSS developers work at a company producing non-free software, enabling them to create free software in their free time. The big foundations are supported by the big software companies. Most companies producing free software do so for a market of non-free software developers. If you decrease the freedom of developers you also decrease the ability for users to do anything, because there would be much less software. Software would be a small elite circle. The world is a complex place, fundamentalism very rarely accounts for that.

Karunamon 10y ago

What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer? Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due to lack of time or knowledge, what exactly is the benefit?

davexunit 10y ago
What use is the freedom of the press to someone who isn't a journalist?
- GeoffKnauth 10y ago
  It's a benefit to readers / citizens to have information that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    Correct! And it's a benefit to users to have software that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      <post type="devils-advocate"> Instead, it's controlled by an unaccountable mass of people who may or may not be working with their best interests in mind. Instead of abusing a user's wallet, they instead abuse their time, attention, or data. Off the top of my head, Ubuntu's Amazon integration, Freedesktop's push to Systemd all the things, Firefox's new page ads... </post> The difference between a corporation and a large FOSS project is limited to their goals and probably values. Both are generally subject to a central figurehead or committee who makes all the decisions and chooses how the project will evolve. I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical.
      - catdog 10y ago
        > I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. But if that change is not that big or fundamental you can still apply a patch with relative ease. Thats already huge compared to most proprietary Software. > It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical. I disagree. It may not be always that easy in practice to take advantage of your freedom but that makes it not worthless. Maybe it's too much work for you to maintain a (partial) fork of the Linux kernel but if you find yourself a group of like minded people it may be perfectly possible. Free software also is by far unable to magically fix all of our societies problems but it is one tiny part of making the world better.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

Stallman's view is even more developer-centric. Who cares about source code? Not most users. If the aim was to make software that's easily user-modifiable - user-modifiable, not developer-modifiable - free software has been a complete failure. There's certainly a net benefit in distributing software with free access to source code so it can be modified by experienced developers. But that has never been Stallman's stated aim. If Stallman and the FSF really cared about users - not developers - they'd have spent more time creating software systems that were user-editable. In fact the industry, including Stallman, has stampeded in the opposite direction. It's harder for ordinary users to make modifiable software now than it's ever been in the past. We no longer have HyperCard, VB and VBA are dying arts, and the insides of all operating systems - including Linux - are absolutely horrible environments for non-developers to work in. We don't even have BASIC or those make-your-own game systems we had in the 8-bit days. Those were bare minimum systems. Has it really been impossible to invent something better for more than 30 years? No one knows. But for all the rhetoric, the question interests Stallman as little as it interests the rest of the industry.

davexunit 10y ago
The GNU project boasts some of the most hackable software ever made. GNU Emacs is the most notable. RMS has been an advocate for languages like Lisp over languages like C because programs written in Lisp, like Emacs, are user extensible.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > The GNU project boasts some of the most hackable software ever made. GNU Emacs is the most notable. Politics sometimes stops the hackablity https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8861360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8861360
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  If that were the case, how does that explain the "plugins for gcc" issue.
bad_user 10y ago

bad_user 10y ago

Why should there exist a distinction between users and developers? If more people were educated in the basics of software development, enough to help them in their chosen profession and to understand the technology around them, those people wouldn't be so easy to abuse in the first place. Basically this line of thought is a huge mistake, playing on the tune of the software companies and state agencies that abuse people and break their freedoms. And in fact, I'm pretty sure that Stallman disagrees with you. After all, this distinction is why he was pissed off and started GNU and the GPL in the first place ;-)

Shorel 10y ago

Yet the developers are the ones who can and choose their software licenses. Without developers choosing BSD or MIT over GPL, GPL loses some of its influence.