4 ms·

It's about making sure that if you build upon the work that others have made openly available, that you contribute back. If you want to keep your code closed,

by lnguyen 16y ago

It's about making sure that if you build upon the work that others have made openly available, that you contribute back. If you want to keep your code closed, then you're more than welcome to do that. Just honor the choice that others have made with their code.

baddox 16y ago
I'm not saying that's a bad policy necessarily, I'm just saying it isn't exactly what I would call "free" software.
- Qz 16y ago
  It's not about being completely free for you, it's about being mostly free for everyone.
  - bitdiddle 16y ago
    Thanks for saying this. I think it's best to compare this kind of freedom to freedoms we get from our constitution. You can't deny others those freedoms.
  - baddox 16y ago
    That doesn't sound like the philosophy behind the Free Software Movement.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Remember that the GPL prevents one thing and one thing only: making proprietary forks. Meaning, the only "freedom" it doesn't give you is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. This limit is perfectly in line with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I argue that anything that allow this limit to be crossed does not most efficiently promotes freedom. Yes, permissive licences do not most efficiently promote freedom. (Don't get me wrong: they do promote freedom.) Now the AGPL, because of its additional restriction, could be seen as less free. I think that technically, it is (it doesn't fully give you the right to private modifications). But the spirit is the same, applied to remote applications instead of distributed software.
  - baddox 16y ago
    It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.
    - klipt 16y ago
      You can conceal any code you write from scratch, but you can't build onto GPL code for free without agreeing to reciprocate. It seems a fair exchange to me.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 You can build onto GPL for free without reciprocating. That's called freedom 1: the right to private modifications.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      [tired] How often do I have to say it ? [Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a private fork. Now in the case of software executed remotely, or software as a service, Eben Moglen himself reckons there is a conflict of rights: because the client is effectively using the code, it should have access to the source code. And because the server do not actually distribute the software, it should have the right not to release anything. You can't satisfy both rights at the same time. The GPL satisfies one (it is 100% compatible with privacy rights), and the AGPL satisfies the other (and makes itself incompatible with some privacy rights in the process). That's a pity, because before the rise of software as a service, the GPL was the ultimate freedom respecting licence. Now you have to choose between two compromises. PS: Don't say "property" about software, if you can help it. It is a inaccurate analogy from the physical goods, which fail to convey the truth about knowledge. (Of course, software is pure knowledge.)

by lnguyen 16y ago

baddox 16y ago

I'm not saying that's a bad policy necessarily, I'm just saying it isn't exactly what I would call "free" software.

Qz 16y ago
It's not about being completely free for you, it's about being mostly free for everyone.
- bitdiddle 16y ago
  Thanks for saying this. I think it's best to compare this kind of freedom to freedoms we get from our constitution. You can't deny others those freedoms.
- baddox 16y ago
  That doesn't sound like the philosophy behind the Free Software Movement.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
Remember that the GPL prevents one thing and one thing only: making proprietary forks. Meaning, the only "freedom" it doesn't give you is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. This limit is perfectly in line with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I argue that anything that allow this limit to be crossed does not most efficiently promotes freedom. Yes, permissive licences do not most efficiently promote freedom. (Don't get me wrong: they do promote freedom.) Now the AGPL, because of its additional restriction, could be seen as less free. I think that technically, it is (it doesn't fully give you the right to private modifications). But the spirit is the same, applied to remote applications instead of distributed software.
- baddox 16y ago
  It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.
  - klipt 16y ago
    You can conceal any code you write from scratch, but you can't build onto GPL code for free without agreeing to reciprocate. It seems a fair exchange to me.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 You can build onto GPL for free without reciprocating. That's called freedom 1: the right to private modifications.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    [tired] How often do I have to say it ? [Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a private fork. Now in the case of software executed remotely, or software as a service, Eben Moglen himself reckons there is a conflict of rights: because the client is effectively using the code, it should have access to the source code. And because the server do not actually distribute the software, it should have the right not to release anything. You can't satisfy both rights at the same time. The GPL satisfies one (it is 100% compatible with privacy rights), and the AGPL satisfies the other (and makes itself incompatible with some privacy rights in the process). That's a pity, because before the rise of software as a service, the GPL was the ultimate freedom respecting licence. Now you have to choose between two compromises. PS: Don't say "property" about software, if you can help it. It is a inaccurate analogy from the physical goods, which fail to convey the truth about knowledge. (Of course, software is pure knowledge.)