4 ms·

But the outcome for consumers isn't better at all. What's happening, despite Linux being GPLv2, is that its used for a giant spy net (Android) and financed via

But the outcome for consumers isn't better at all. What's happening, despite Linux being GPLv2, is that its used for a giant spy net (Android) and financed via ads. Moreover, the concentration of computing in the hands of very few cloud providers has been only made possible due to almost all software being free/open such that it has become a commodity, and what little revenue there is, isn't going into maintenance. Also, your screwdriver analogy isn't fitting, as a screwdriver is a physical product that you must buy, whereas for software its only ISPs, web hosters, and cloud providers that can earn a living by providing a service on top. The recent questions about F/OSS licensing are about sustainable models for software development, and are not answered by dogmatically referencing "the four freedoms".

meditate 8y ago
I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. If you're drafting a new free software license you will need to consider how you provide the four freedoms in addition to what your model for development is. What you dismiss as dogma is decidedly the whole point of writing a free software license. I won't comment on specific privacy issues or on decreasing margins, but it would appear that Linux (at least) is riding the wave of consolidation, not the other way around. The increasing pervasiveness of service models just means the market has reached maturation.
icebraining 8y ago
the concentration of computing in the hands of very few cloud providers has been only made possible due to almost all software being free/open such that it has become a commodity On what do you base this claim? The desktop OS market became concentrated in the hands of essentially one provider, and neither it nor most of the software that ran on it was free/open. The cloud market is arguably more competitive, and becoming more so; the core of the revenue might be going to four or five big providers - which is already more than the above - but as a client you have much more to choose from.
- tannhaeuser 8y ago
  That the desktop market became a monopoly without F/OSS doesn't mean cloud isn't becoming one based on F/OSS. Cloud thrives on abundance of F/OSS where the only money being made is for glue code and services, none of which arrives at the original developers or maintainers.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    My question is why couldn't Microsoft, Google and such have built their cloud services from proprietary code (their own and bought), much like Microsoft built their desktop OS and office and proceeded to dominate that market. I don't see the evidence behind the claim that it "has been only made possible due to almost all software being free/open". MS certainly had the money, and it didn't come from FOSS. If anything, I could see small players like DigitalOcean or OVH struggling to afford the fees for the code they needed, leading to an even greater reduction of competition.

meditate 8y ago

I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. If you're drafting a new free software license you will need to consider how you provide the four freedoms in addition to what your model for development is. What you dismiss as dogma is decidedly the whole point of writing a free software license. I won't comment on specific privacy issues or on decreasing margins, but it would appear that Linux (at least) is riding the wave of consolidation, not the other way around. The increasing pervasiveness of service models just means the market has reached maturation.

icebraining 8y ago

the concentration of computing in the hands of very few cloud providers has been only made possible due to almost all software being free/open such that it has become a commodity On what do you base this claim? The desktop OS market became concentrated in the hands of essentially one provider, and neither it nor most of the software that ran on it was free/open. The cloud market is arguably more competitive, and becoming more so; the core of the revenue might be going to four or five big providers - which is already more than the above - but as a client you have much more to choose from.

tannhaeuser 8y ago
That the desktop market became a monopoly without F/OSS doesn't mean cloud isn't becoming one based on F/OSS. Cloud thrives on abundance of F/OSS where the only money being made is for glue code and services, none of which arrives at the original developers or maintainers.
- icebraining 8y ago
  My question is why couldn't Microsoft, Google and such have built their cloud services from proprietary code (their own and bought), much like Microsoft built their desktop OS and office and proceeded to dominate that market. I don't see the evidence behind the claim that it "has been only made possible due to almost all software being free/open". MS certainly had the money, and it didn't come from FOSS. If anything, I could see small players like DigitalOcean or OVH struggling to afford the fees for the code they needed, leading to an even greater reduction of competition.