4 ms·

I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. These licenses are a step in a direction closer to what

by antt 8y ago

I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. These licenses are a step in a direction closer to what I would like to see, but aren't quite there yet. If you as a person want to run software xyz and try to make money off of it, go ahead. As soon as you open a limited company to reduce your exposure you should be hit with paying license fees. I don't get the hate for the licenses that try to remove freedom 0 for corporations. At work I suggest horrible propitiatory software solutions all the time because it doesn't matter how locked down the stack is. So long as it has a ROI of >3% over the fixed and running costs it's a good solution. No one is harmed by human first open source software, other than a legal fictions bottom line.

codetrotter 8y ago
> I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. So basically, turn freedom 0 into not freedom 0. For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. What you are saying seems to go against the principles of freedom 0, and I don’t get your motivation either, because at the same time you don’t seem to mind proprietary software. My main issue with what you are saying is that it’s not clear what you mean by “removing freedom 0 for corporations”. Do you mean specifically when they are offering software written by someone else as a direct service to customers? What about using it in the backend? What about employees using FOSS? There is a lot more to be said and discussed about this.
- neolefty 8y ago
  Rather, I'd say it reinterprets "run the program" to be "have access to the program over the web". In other words, if I use your website, I should also be able to stand up my own version that uses my own data.
- antt 8y ago
  >For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. That depends on what your definition of "you" and "you wish" is. If your boss tells you to run X then you are not the one wanting to run it, the company is. And, American jurisprudence not notwithstanding, I don't consider corporations to be a form of "you". If a sole proprietor with full legal liability for their actions wanted to do the same, more power to them. No matter how many people they hire to do the work for them.
cyphar 8y ago
This would mean that corporations will have no incentive to use or contribute to free software -- 80% of contributions to the Linux kernel are people working for corporations. I also don't see why limitation of liability is the point where right to use free software should be curtailed -- there already is no liability in software (see the no warranty clause in literally every software license). Why not put the line at making a profit at all? (Because it's obvious that disallowing users to make any money at all with a free software license would clearly be an issue.)
fabianhjr 8y ago
Hi, you might be interested in the discussion around copyfarlft/copyfair touched by Dmytri Kleiner. http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekommunist.pdf http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekom... It is sort of similar but includes worker-owned coops. So basically either an individual person or a worker-ownder coop can use a Copyfarleft work for profit.
nbsd4life 8y ago
so you want a non-commercial use license. these aren't seen as open source by most people, but perhaps they'll be accepted by users. calling it open source is harming actual open source projects by making people fear adopting them.
- antt 8y ago
  No, I want a non-commercial license for non-human entities. I don't care if someone is using my software in their family bakery. If anything I'd be super happy about that. What I do mind is someone using my software in their multinational baking conglomerate without me ever seeing a cent for the work, while at the same time keeping other developers from ever being paid for developing the software in house.
  - zhte415 8y ago
    > Bakery > multinational baking conglomerate > keeping other developers from ever being paid for developing the software in house Sorry if miss-logicing in these quotes. Please do correct if you thing they're taken out-of-place. A bakery is commercial. They software they use is baked into the oven and POS. 'family bakery' - do you mind a family member in the store, do you mind them logging it with your name? Do you mind them using a camera to recognise when you come in? Do you mind a staff member recognising you when you come in? Is tallying today's weather vs sandwiches sales OK? Credit card promotion? Different level of Personally Identifiable Identification. > What I do mind is someone using my software in their multinational baking conglomerate without me ever seeing a cent for the work Why not? What's the license? Assume in Github. Ask for comments. The people in these companies are hackers too and not cold-blooded fuck-the-customer. If you're got good code for baking, contribute.
donatj 8y ago
The reason we use open source is for the freedom of it, we can use a library of a permissive license, redistribute and reuse the code elsewhere in the organization without worry. Without contacting the vendor. We’re not shooting future us in the foot. It’s far more about function and redistribution than ROI. It’s about peace of mind. It’s about not having to worry about a vendor revoking a license down the road. I think you are entirely missing the point and values of “Free Software” vs open source.
gowld 8y ago
Corporations are made of people.

by antt 8y ago

codetrotter 8y ago

> I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. So basically, turn freedom 0 into not freedom 0. For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. What you are saying seems to go against the principles of freedom 0, and I don’t get your motivation either, because at the same time you don’t seem to mind proprietary software. My main issue with what you are saying is that it’s not clear what you mean by “removing freedom 0 for corporations”. Do you mean specifically when they are offering software written by someone else as a direct service to customers? What about using it in the backend? What about employees using FOSS? There is a lot more to be said and discussed about this.

neolefty 8y ago
Rather, I'd say it reinterprets "run the program" to be "have access to the program over the web". In other words, if I use your website, I should also be able to stand up my own version that uses my own data.
antt 8y ago
>For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. That depends on what your definition of "you" and "you wish" is. If your boss tells you to run X then you are not the one wanting to run it, the company is. And, American jurisprudence not notwithstanding, I don't consider corporations to be a form of "you". If a sole proprietor with full legal liability for their actions wanted to do the same, more power to them. No matter how many people they hire to do the work for them.

cyphar 8y ago

This would mean that corporations will have no incentive to use or contribute to free software -- 80% of contributions to the Linux kernel are people working for corporations. I also don't see why limitation of liability is the point where right to use free software should be curtailed -- there already is no liability in software (see the no warranty clause in literally every software license). Why not put the line at making a profit at all? (Because it's obvious that disallowing users to make any money at all with a free software license would clearly be an issue.)

fabianhjr 8y ago

Hi, you might be interested in the discussion around copyfarlft/copyfair touched by Dmytri Kleiner. http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekommunist.pdf http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%233notebook_telekom... It is sort of similar but includes worker-owned coops. So basically either an individual person or a worker-ownder coop can use a Copyfarleft work for profit.

nbsd4life 8y ago

so you want a non-commercial use license. these aren't seen as open source by most people, but perhaps they'll be accepted by users. calling it open source is harming actual open source projects by making people fear adopting them.

antt 8y ago
No, I want a non-commercial license for non-human entities. I don't care if someone is using my software in their family bakery. If anything I'd be super happy about that. What I do mind is someone using my software in their multinational baking conglomerate without me ever seeing a cent for the work, while at the same time keeping other developers from ever being paid for developing the software in house.
- zhte415 8y ago
  > Bakery > multinational baking conglomerate > keeping other developers from ever being paid for developing the software in house Sorry if miss-logicing in these quotes. Please do correct if you thing they're taken out-of-place. A bakery is commercial. They software they use is baked into the oven and POS. 'family bakery' - do you mind a family member in the store, do you mind them logging it with your name? Do you mind them using a camera to recognise when you come in? Do you mind a staff member recognising you when you come in? Is tallying today's weather vs sandwiches sales OK? Credit card promotion? Different level of Personally Identifiable Identification. > What I do mind is someone using my software in their multinational baking conglomerate without me ever seeing a cent for the work Why not? What's the license? Assume in Github. Ask for comments. The people in these companies are hackers too and not cold-blooded fuck-the-customer. If you're got good code for baking, contribute.

donatj 8y ago

The reason we use open source is for the freedom of it, we can use a library of a permissive license, redistribute and reuse the code elsewhere in the organization without worry. Without contacting the vendor. We’re not shooting future us in the foot. It’s far more about function and redistribution than ROI. It’s about peace of mind. It’s about not having to worry about a vendor revoking a license down the road. I think you are entirely missing the point and values of “Free Software” vs open source.

gowld 8y ago

Corporations are made of people.