9 ms·

This argues for a third counterpart to FSF-style "Free Software" and OSI-style "Open Source Software" terms. Apparently, FSF is too preachy and OSI is too busi

by smush 8y ago

This argues for a third counterpart to FSF-style "Free Software" and OSI-style "Open Source Software" terms. Apparently, FSF is too preachy and OSI is too business-y and thus following "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" style, a new, third movement of producing software that is free to copy, free to modify, etc. will naturally arise on its own. There are allusions to brogrammers who know nothing more about OSI than 'It's on GitHub!!', I'm not sure how charitable that is but I can say for several years that no matter how many wiki walks I've taken down the history of Linux, GNU et al which is probably where some of those brogrammers fell as well. IDK the difference, does it really matter, might as well stop looking into it any further than that. The schism and lack of unity between church of FSF and church of OSI has probably had a net detracting effect on getting software to be more permissible, even if the absolute effect has been way more FS/OS software than would be expected otherwis. I could be totally wrong, I didn't show up for computing until the Win 95 days.

steveklabnik 8y ago
Thanks for reading! > a new, third movement of producing software that is free to copy, free to modify, etc. will naturally arise on its own. I think this is a bit too teleological. I'm not confident that such a thing will happen. I think that the environment is ripe for something to happen, but I don't know what that is. That's exactly because of > IDK the difference, does it really matter, might as well stop looking into it any further than that. I don't think that most people's conception of open source matches the FSF/OSI definitions. Does it really matter? I don't think it does for most people. I do think there's a values mis-match there though, and that means there's the possibility for a new thing that's a match. I think there are significant obstacles to that project, though. That's for the next post. I hope that I actually write it though, I've been trying to for over two years...
- AWildC182 8y ago
  > I don't think that most people's conception of open source matches the FSF/OSI definitions. To be honest, I'm still not sure what people think OSS is. I personally align heavily with the FSF model but that's mostly because I live in an industry (embedded) that obsesses over proprietary everything and thinks their shitty source code is the apex of valuable intellectual property (\rant) but I get that the story is very different on the other side where everyone is publishing Yet Another Javascript Library. Maybe this is all just a product of our environment?
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    I don't claim to know exactly either, and maybe you're right, and I'm over-correcting based on my environment :) But I have had a lot of conversations about this in the past few years... (I personally prefer the FSF model, but think that the OSI has won, at this point. All my software is Apache2/MIT these days. And even though I prefer it in the abstract, I have a lot of criticisms of both.)
    - AWildC182 8y ago
      I think I forgot who I was talking to for a sec... I'm guessing there's quite a bit we agree on :) Looking across the aisle, I do wonder from time to time if the AGPL was a sort of breaking point. GPL always "threatened" industry at the desktop level and lower but once everyone's beloved FAANG+/- was in the cross-hairs the discussion maybe degraded a bit.
      - steveklabnik 8y ago
        :) I think so, but I tend to think of it as not the AGPL's fault, exactly. That is, the GPL was a product of its time: it's very concerned with the details of writing non-networked C code. It pre-dates the web! It was impossible to forsee these kinds of changes, and it just so happens that it was not really prepared for them. The AGPL was an attempt to plug that hole, but it was too little, too late.
        AWildC182 8y ago
        Yea, I don't think it's AGPL's fault. I think people became complacent with the landscape of GPL and what that meant for production applications but when GNU came around and tried to make it all apply uniformly (right after dot-com) OSI had already gained enough traction that a full GPL looked "weird" and turned into more of a signal that you didn't want anyone to use your code. That and Google et. al. banned it as it obviously threatened its model that some might see as abusing GPL.
      - naniwaduni 8y ago
- smush 8y ago
  I agree with both of your points. I will add that if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? Get the (not that it sounds great to say it this way) least common denominator between the two definitions, unify the Orgs, and present a unified front to prospective learners. There's propriety software and FOSS, the former word is defined in the dictionary, the latter word/acronym is defined at freesoftwareisopensource.stallman , rthar than the "it's over here at the FSF websites, on your right, past the "Linux should be called GNU/Linux arguments" aisle."
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    Maybe, but I can't possibly see it happening. Two decades of bad blood is non-trivial to resolve, and I'm not sure that the two projects really are trying to do the same thing. From the FSF side, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... for example.
  - jasode 8y ago
    >if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? I don't see how merging would be possible because FSF and OSI have incompatible philosophical differences to sharing/distributing software. E.g. OSI is compatible with permissive licenses such as MIT License and BSD License. That's totally against what FSF and Stallman is about and their GPL license reflects that philosophy.
    - steveklabnik 8y ago
      The MIT and BSD licenses are also Free Software licenses, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html > This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. > > This is a fine license for a small program. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protects users from patent treachery. and > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. Note that some software licences may qualify as being a free software license, yet be not compatible with the GPL. Those are two different things.
- sevensor 8y ago
  Finding a viable third way is going to require identifying a set of broadly agreed-on values that differ from those espoused by FSF or OSI. Maybe my thinking is limited by what's already out there, but I have a hard time seeing a third free-as-in- beyond speech (FSF) and beer (OSI). Perhaps thinking in terms of free-as-in- is too constrained and we need to propose an entirely new social contract around participatory software development?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Maybe my thinking is limited by what's already out there, but I have a hard time seeing a third free-as-in- beyond speech (FSF) and beer (OSI). We, OSI and FSF are both free-as-in-speech; they both use definitions centered around th freedom of the licensee.
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    I don’t want to spoil too much, but yes, I think “participatory” may play a part. I have more questions than answers, though.
    - sevensor 8y ago
      Let me spoil it a little then :) I use the word "participatory" because it seems like a lot of complaints about the current state of free and open source software hinge on a lack of reciprocity. You have the individual maintainer of a small project, who feels burned because there are people out there making money on her back. You have companies like Red Hat making life harder for CentOS because Oracle are a big pile of freeloading jerks (old news, I know). You have other companies like Google strategically open sourcing some of their technologies for commercial advantage. We have complaints about maintainers who orphan their projects, and we argue about whether it's OK to complain about not getting something for nothing any more. It seems like all of this strife comes from disagreements about what expectations we should have for all of the stakeholders -- owners, users, contributors, and maintainers. Not all of this can be spelled out in a license, as we've seen in the rise of CLAs and COCs. And so I use "participatory" in the sense that participating in third-way open source would impose some obligations in addition to the entitlements enumerated by the license.
zanny 8y ago
I get the impression that the Rust community is wholly burdened in this third wave mindset. Everything is dual licensed Apache / MIT to guarantee maximum developer freedom. There have probably been a billion man hours poured into developing the Rust ecosystem at this point and I personally really think its destined for greatness. But the licensing style is already coming back to haunt all the projects - with growing popularity game studios, big megacorps, Mozillas own competitors, etc have started adopting Rust. And they give nothing back. No money, no developer hours. They take the fruits of a fledgling ecosystem and experience great productivity and performance improvements in their commercial products and reap increasing profits on the backs of people who naively just thought "I just want people to be able use my code is all". The third wave does not recognize the tremendous costs associated with giving away productivity to corporations. It costs society broadly, because it empowers business interests to exploit workers and customers for greater revenues not through their own ingenuity or innovation but through the labors of others given away freely. That isn't being generous on the parts of the developers who wrote the code for those that most need generosity.
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  Several of our production users do give back developer hours. Some have asked to give money, but we don't have a way to do it yet. We're working on it... > The third wave does not recognize the tremendous costs associated with giving away productivity to corporations. I think they do, and that's where the unrest is coming from. This realization has come after, not before, actually contributing.

by smush 8y ago

steveklabnik 8y ago

Thanks for reading! > a new, third movement of producing software that is free to copy, free to modify, etc. will naturally arise on its own. I think this is a bit too teleological. I'm not confident that such a thing will happen. I think that the environment is ripe for something to happen, but I don't know what that is. That's exactly because of > IDK the difference, does it really matter, might as well stop looking into it any further than that. I don't think that most people's conception of open source matches the FSF/OSI definitions. Does it really matter? I don't think it does for most people. I do think there's a values mis-match there though, and that means there's the possibility for a new thing that's a match. I think there are significant obstacles to that project, though. That's for the next post. I hope that I actually write it though, I've been trying to for over two years...

AWildC182 8y ago
> I don't think that most people's conception of open source matches the FSF/OSI definitions. To be honest, I'm still not sure what people think OSS is. I personally align heavily with the FSF model but that's mostly because I live in an industry (embedded) that obsesses over proprietary everything and thinks their shitty source code is the apex of valuable intellectual property (\rant) but I get that the story is very different on the other side where everyone is publishing Yet Another Javascript Library. Maybe this is all just a product of our environment?
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  I don't claim to know exactly either, and maybe you're right, and I'm over-correcting based on my environment :) But I have had a lot of conversations about this in the past few years... (I personally prefer the FSF model, but think that the OSI has won, at this point. All my software is Apache2/MIT these days. And even though I prefer it in the abstract, I have a lot of criticisms of both.)
  - AWildC182 8y ago
    I think I forgot who I was talking to for a sec... I'm guessing there's quite a bit we agree on :) Looking across the aisle, I do wonder from time to time if the AGPL was a sort of breaking point. GPL always "threatened" industry at the desktop level and lower but once everyone's beloved FAANG+/- was in the cross-hairs the discussion maybe degraded a bit.
    - steveklabnik 8y ago
      :) I think so, but I tend to think of it as not the AGPL's fault, exactly. That is, the GPL was a product of its time: it's very concerned with the details of writing non-networked C code. It pre-dates the web! It was impossible to forsee these kinds of changes, and it just so happens that it was not really prepared for them. The AGPL was an attempt to plug that hole, but it was too little, too late.
      - AWildC182 8y ago
        Yea, I don't think it's AGPL's fault. I think people became complacent with the landscape of GPL and what that meant for production applications but when GNU came around and tried to make it all apply uniformly (right after dot-com) OSI had already gained enough traction that a full GPL looked "weird" and turned into more of a signal that you didn't want anyone to use your code. That and Google et. al. banned it as it obviously threatened its model that some might see as abusing GPL.
    - naniwaduni 8y ago
smush 8y ago
I agree with both of your points. I will add that if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? Get the (not that it sounds great to say it this way) least common denominator between the two definitions, unify the Orgs, and present a unified front to prospective learners. There's propriety software and FOSS, the former word is defined in the dictionary, the latter word/acronym is defined at freesoftwareisopensource.stallman , rthar than the "it's over here at the FSF websites, on your right, past the "Linux should be called GNU/Linux arguments" aisle."
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  Maybe, but I can't possibly see it happening. Two decades of bad blood is non-trivial to resolve, and I'm not sure that the two projects really are trying to do the same thing. From the FSF side, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... for example.
- jasode 8y ago
  >if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? I don't see how merging would be possible because FSF and OSI have incompatible philosophical differences to sharing/distributing software. E.g. OSI is compatible with permissive licenses such as MIT License and BSD License. That's totally against what FSF and Stallman is about and their GPL license reflects that philosophy.
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    The MIT and BSD licenses are also Free Software licenses, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html > This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. > > This is a fine license for a small program. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protects users from patent treachery. and > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. Note that some software licences may qualify as being a free software license, yet be not compatible with the GPL. Those are two different things.
sevensor 8y ago
Finding a viable third way is going to require identifying a set of broadly agreed-on values that differ from those espoused by FSF or OSI. Maybe my thinking is limited by what's already out there, but I have a hard time seeing a third free-as-in- beyond speech (FSF) and beer (OSI). Perhaps thinking in terms of free-as-in- is too constrained and we need to propose an entirely new social contract around participatory software development?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Maybe my thinking is limited by what's already out there, but I have a hard time seeing a third free-as-in- beyond speech (FSF) and beer (OSI). We, OSI and FSF are both free-as-in-speech; they both use definitions centered around th freedom of the licensee.
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  I don’t want to spoil too much, but yes, I think “participatory” may play a part. I have more questions than answers, though.
  - sevensor 8y ago
    Let me spoil it a little then :) I use the word "participatory" because it seems like a lot of complaints about the current state of free and open source software hinge on a lack of reciprocity. You have the individual maintainer of a small project, who feels burned because there are people out there making money on her back. You have companies like Red Hat making life harder for CentOS because Oracle are a big pile of freeloading jerks (old news, I know). You have other companies like Google strategically open sourcing some of their technologies for commercial advantage. We have complaints about maintainers who orphan their projects, and we argue about whether it's OK to complain about not getting something for nothing any more. It seems like all of this strife comes from disagreements about what expectations we should have for all of the stakeholders -- owners, users, contributors, and maintainers. Not all of this can be spelled out in a license, as we've seen in the rise of CLAs and COCs. And so I use "participatory" in the sense that participating in third-way open source would impose some obligations in addition to the entitlements enumerated by the license.

zanny 8y ago

I get the impression that the Rust community is wholly burdened in this third wave mindset. Everything is dual licensed Apache / MIT to guarantee maximum developer freedom. There have probably been a billion man hours poured into developing the Rust ecosystem at this point and I personally really think its destined for greatness. But the licensing style is already coming back to haunt all the projects - with growing popularity game studios, big megacorps, Mozillas own competitors, etc have started adopting Rust. And they give nothing back. No money, no developer hours. They take the fruits of a fledgling ecosystem and experience great productivity and performance improvements in their commercial products and reap increasing profits on the backs of people who naively just thought "I just want people to be able use my code is all". The third wave does not recognize the tremendous costs associated with giving away productivity to corporations. It costs society broadly, because it empowers business interests to exploit workers and customers for greater revenues not through their own ingenuity or innovation but through the labors of others given away freely. That isn't being generous on the parts of the developers who wrote the code for those that most need generosity.

steveklabnik 8y ago
Several of our production users do give back developer hours. Some have asked to give money, but we don't have a way to do it yet. We're working on it... > The third wave does not recognize the tremendous costs associated with giving away productivity to corporations. I think they do, and that's where the unrest is coming from. This realization has come after, not before, actually contributing.