5 ms·

Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distri

Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distributing it to them. Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them. As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses. Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.

blasdel 16y ago
Freedom 0 is stripped way by the AGPL, since you're not allowed to run the program in public without distributing source to your audience.
- quadhome 16y ago
  What do you mean "run the program in public?" I don't think you mean putting a projector up and showing it off to an audience. (Which would be OK.) I'm guessing you mean a web-app where your "audience" is running the software provided as a service. In that situation, the AGPL requires that you provide them the source code so they aren't beholden to you. Otherwise, a web service is even more closed source than a binary executable.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    You can't run the program on your own computer if other people can connect to it over the network without assenting to the license. It's a goddamn clickwrap EULA, something Stallman used to stand strongly against until he felt the need to rail against "the cloud" as that came into fashion. The "audience" absolutely does not run the software, you do, on your computer — you just allow them to interact with it. Also you're absolutely mistaken in thinking that the AGPL makes your users any less beholden to you when you still control their data — the program by itself is absolutely worthless, even with the means to develop and deploy it.
    - quadhome 16y ago
      I think I see where we're misunderstanding each other. The freedoms the GPL ensures aren't for the developer of the software; but, for the users of that software. The point is that, from the perspective of your users-- your "audience"-- they're running software somewhere out in the Internet. Where the GPL ensured (amongst other things) that they'd have access to the source of their local programs, the AGPL ensures they have access to the source of their remote programs. From your perspective, this decreases your freedom as a developer because you're required to distribute your source code to your "audience." But, you have a simple recourse: don't use the AGPL! wrt. the clickwrap EULA, I think the GPL and its variants have always been a set of terms and conditions. I don't know Stallman's arguments or what you're railing against; but, I will guess that his problem with clickwrap EULAs were that they limited how a user could personally use the software... or, worse, made other at-best tangentially related demands of them. The GPL and its variants do not limit your personal use, but rather constrain your ability to re-distribute the software. wrt. the AGPL making users any less beholden due to the data silo effect, my position is that a program isn't intrinsically useless without a user's data... or even the developer's own custom data. Consider a site like Facebook, where the primary value is in its network effects: anyone could open a competitor site that had feature parity. If the original site (Facebook) changed its policies in a way the userbase disliked, they could move to a competitor knowing the functionality would be the same. Or, consider the GPL release of id software's old games. None of the assets are free. However, that didn't stop a huge ecosystem from springing up. Derivatives, alternate games, and the many thousands of people gaining an understanding of how to make a Real Game.
      - blasdel 16y ago
        You're still mistaken — the freedoms the GPL ensures are for the software itself, not the developers or the users. In the case of VLC the developers have lost the freedom to publish it and end-users can't get it anymore, but those lines of code are sure free from the shackles of the App Store! Facebook users do not see themselves as running software beyond their browser — it's just a website they use to communicate. It would be just as ridiculous to want the source to a SMTP/IMAP or XMPP server just because you have an account on it. The user-facing software is just CRUD plumbing — the account is what has value, and future control over that identity on that domain is usually more valuable than even the past data. The GPL's conditions cleverly fit within the enforcement mechanisms of copyright law, it's a license to redistribute not a contract for use. The AGPL is totally different, it attempts to restrict your ability to run the software on a network-connected computer, much like the standard EULA text forbids you from using it in a nuclear facility. Unlike the GPL, you have to agree to its terms to execute it. One of these things is not like the other. The id software games are a poor example, those ecosystems of mods were established when the games were commercially released, with tens of thousands of users making their own assets for the game engine they purchased. The GPL releases all came years into their decline, and several of the games had FOSS implementations of their engines before the original source was released.
quadhome 16y ago
wrt. freedoms 2 and 3, yes, you can. See: any GPL software on Windows. Maybe you meant you can't distribute a closed source program that depends on a GPL library?
- halostatue 16y ago
  Windows has the OS exception in place, as would iOS. RMS has expressed the opinion that GPLed PhotoShop plug-ins aren't legal, nor is it legal to use a closed-source plug-in in the Gimp. The whole question of GPLed code in a non-free JVM has never been answered, as the JVM isn't quite an OS to qualify for the OS exception. Thus, freedoms 2 & 3 are somewhat…flexible in practice.
  - quadhome 16y ago
    There is no official "OS exception." But, the GPL does discriminate against "System Libraries" Can you link to where RMS expressed that opinion? It goes directly against GNU's FAQ on the GPL[1]. It is a copyright violation to distribute closed source plugins for the GIMP. But, that is the reverse of the photoshop situation. The GIMP is GPL and so anything linking with it must also guarantee the same redistribution rights. But, neither of these examples conflicts against your earlier examples. The GPL places no restrictions on your-- or your neighbor's-- personal use. And, you may distribute a GPL extension to a closed source product. Of course, GNU would rather you'd implement a free software equivalent. :rolls eyes: [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

blasdel 16y ago

Freedom 0 is stripped way by the AGPL, since you're not allowed to run the program in public without distributing source to your audience.

quadhome 16y ago
What do you mean "run the program in public?" I don't think you mean putting a projector up and showing it off to an audience. (Which would be OK.) I'm guessing you mean a web-app where your "audience" is running the software provided as a service. In that situation, the AGPL requires that you provide them the source code so they aren't beholden to you. Otherwise, a web service is even more closed source than a binary executable.
- blasdel 16y ago
  You can't run the program on your own computer if other people can connect to it over the network without assenting to the license. It's a goddamn clickwrap EULA, something Stallman used to stand strongly against until he felt the need to rail against "the cloud" as that came into fashion. The "audience" absolutely does not run the software, you do, on your computer — you just allow them to interact with it. Also you're absolutely mistaken in thinking that the AGPL makes your users any less beholden to you when you still control their data — the program by itself is absolutely worthless, even with the means to develop and deploy it.
  - quadhome 16y ago
    I think I see where we're misunderstanding each other. The freedoms the GPL ensures aren't for the developer of the software; but, for the users of that software. The point is that, from the perspective of your users-- your "audience"-- they're running software somewhere out in the Internet. Where the GPL ensured (amongst other things) that they'd have access to the source of their local programs, the AGPL ensures they have access to the source of their remote programs. From your perspective, this decreases your freedom as a developer because you're required to distribute your source code to your "audience." But, you have a simple recourse: don't use the AGPL! wrt. the clickwrap EULA, I think the GPL and its variants have always been a set of terms and conditions. I don't know Stallman's arguments or what you're railing against; but, I will guess that his problem with clickwrap EULAs were that they limited how a user could personally use the software... or, worse, made other at-best tangentially related demands of them. The GPL and its variants do not limit your personal use, but rather constrain your ability to re-distribute the software. wrt. the AGPL making users any less beholden due to the data silo effect, my position is that a program isn't intrinsically useless without a user's data... or even the developer's own custom data. Consider a site like Facebook, where the primary value is in its network effects: anyone could open a competitor site that had feature parity. If the original site (Facebook) changed its policies in a way the userbase disliked, they could move to a competitor knowing the functionality would be the same. Or, consider the GPL release of id software's old games. None of the assets are free. However, that didn't stop a huge ecosystem from springing up. Derivatives, alternate games, and the many thousands of people gaining an understanding of how to make a Real Game.
    - blasdel 16y ago
      You're still mistaken — the freedoms the GPL ensures are for the software itself, not the developers or the users. In the case of VLC the developers have lost the freedom to publish it and end-users can't get it anymore, but those lines of code are sure free from the shackles of the App Store! Facebook users do not see themselves as running software beyond their browser — it's just a website they use to communicate. It would be just as ridiculous to want the source to a SMTP/IMAP or XMPP server just because you have an account on it. The user-facing software is just CRUD plumbing — the account is what has value, and future control over that identity on that domain is usually more valuable than even the past data. The GPL's conditions cleverly fit within the enforcement mechanisms of copyright law, it's a license to redistribute not a contract for use. The AGPL is totally different, it attempts to restrict your ability to run the software on a network-connected computer, much like the standard EULA text forbids you from using it in a nuclear facility. Unlike the GPL, you have to agree to its terms to execute it. One of these things is not like the other. The id software games are a poor example, those ecosystems of mods were established when the games were commercially released, with tens of thousands of users making their own assets for the game engine they purchased. The GPL releases all came years into their decline, and several of the games had FOSS implementations of their engines before the original source was released.

quadhome 16y ago

wrt. freedoms 2 and 3, yes, you can. See: any GPL software on Windows. Maybe you meant you can't distribute a closed source program that depends on a GPL library?

halostatue 16y ago
Windows has the OS exception in place, as would iOS. RMS has expressed the opinion that GPLed PhotoShop plug-ins aren't legal, nor is it legal to use a closed-source plug-in in the Gimp. The whole question of GPLed code in a non-free JVM has never been answered, as the JVM isn't quite an OS to qualify for the OS exception. Thus, freedoms 2 & 3 are somewhat…flexible in practice.
- quadhome 16y ago
  There is no official "OS exception." But, the GPL does discriminate against "System Libraries" Can you link to where RMS expressed that opinion? It goes directly against GNU's FAQ on the GPL[1]. It is a copyright violation to distribute closed source plugins for the GIMP. But, that is the reverse of the photoshop situation. The GIMP is GPL and so anything linking with it must also guarantee the same redistribution rights. But, neither of these examples conflicts against your earlier examples. The GPL places no restrictions on your-- or your neighbor's-- personal use. And, you may distribute a GPL extension to a closed source product. Of course, GNU would rather you'd implement a free software equivalent. :rolls eyes: [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF