10 ms·

An English language article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard-stallman-spoke-at-microsoft-research-this-week/ https://www.zdnet.com/

An English language article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard-stallman-spoke-at-microsoft-research-this-week/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard... Also Pedro Paulo explained what the content of the talk was: > Mostly standard talk. Importance of free software, GPL v3, GNU vs Linux. However, he had a list of "small requests": make Github push users to better software license hygiene, make hardware manufacturers to publish their hardware specs, make it easier to workaround Secure Boot. https://twitter.com/pedrovc/status/1169616695935172608 https://twitter.com/pedrovc/status/1169616695935172608

userbinator 7y ago
Agree strongly with the last two requests, but not so much the first one (but I guess it's to be expected for RMS.)
- Macha 7y ago
  What's so objectionable about that. Honestly one of the more annoying to find problems with GitHub (and npm) is MIT licensed software with GPL dependencies, and even if you want to have closed source software on GitHub, having a "this software is closed source" UI element is still better license hygiene without forcing everything open source. I think honestly this is something other providers (Google code when it was around, gitlab now) are much better at.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Um, GPL is not “closed source.”
    - jimmaswell 7y ago
      GPL code is essentially "don't-touch-with-a-39-and-a-half-foot-pole source" to most people who want any control over their project or are developing in a professional setting.
      - de_watcher 7y ago
        You meant control over the users.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        I think it's mostly unfounded, but companies do avoid this for reasons other than wanting to directly control their users. I worked for a company where everything was Apache 2, BSD 3-clause, MIT, or similarly licensed. Since we distributed source regardless, this means less control over the users, even though it means they have the freedom to not pass it on to their own users. Our lawyers absolutely lost their shit at the suggestion that we include the GPL. Because a bunch of our customers absolutely lost their shit at the slightest hint of GPL, because they don't want to be sued for unintended virality.
        cxr 7y ago
        Hear that, folks? In a world that's increasingly focused on sustainability and funding for software development, programmers with business aspirations should take note: If you're working on something that you hope to (eventually?) make money from, but you also want to benefit from the collegial atmosphere of open source, then choose the GPL. This simple decision instantly eliminates a whole subset of would-be competitors, who you now don't have to worry about undermining your business or otherwise threatening your source of income while they rely on being able to use your own work against you, since the GPL automatically places your work in their do-not-touch category.
        jimmaswell 7y ago
        Forcing your users to have to GPL any of their code based on your code is controlling them more than releasing under a more sane permissive license. It's ironic that GPL is the true restriction of freedom for all the virtues it touts.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        The GPL is quite clear in the responsibilities you have: protecting freedom requires taking away the right to be able to curtail it.
    - Macha 7y ago
      I guess my post wasn't clear that I was referring to two issues - I assumed the original poster took RMS's comment as "ban closed source from GitHub", and was pointing out that being clear on licensing is not the same thing as being open source only, and that an actual issue this causes for open source software is not-actually-MIT software.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    Once you statically like that MIT licensed code to GPL licensed code, you have a GPL licences executable. If the source is provided, I think you're in compliance with the GPL. IANAL and that is a very interesting situation. That type of thing is why I think people need to choose one of: GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD (isn't that essentially MIT?). I dont see the point in other "open source" licenses, they primarily create compatibility issues.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true. You can freely use MIT code (including linking) in a GPL project so long as the source is available. In Rust most code is dual licensed as MIT or Apache 2. You can pick which one to use although IIRC Apache 2 is considered the "primary license" because it provides protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However Apache 2 isn't compatible with GPL.
      - belorn 7y ago
        > According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true What are you talking about? Let say we have code A licensed as MIT and code B licensed GPL. You can combine A with B and distribute it. You can combine B with A and distribute it. AB or BA is both a legal combination that a distributor can do. In both cases the distributor need to follow the condition of both MIT and GPL. You can not distribute AB and only follow GPL, or combine BA and only follow MIT. There is two ways to look at copyright licenses. The slightly incorrect but slightly easier way is to see them as a contract. In order to distribute you need to follow the conditions. If you have two contracts then you have two sets of conditions. Three contracts and three sets of conditions. The second way, which lawyers prefer as the more "true" perspective, is to see a copyright license as a list of permissions. Copyright law dictate that as a distributor you have no rights, so the license is the specific conditions in order to gain permission. It is like a airplane ticket where in order to travel you got to follow the rules and conditions or the airline. Countries can also have conditions and rules like visas, passports and enter/exiting laws. Thus in order to have permission to travel between countries you need to follow both sets of rules and conditions. Incompatibility occur when the rules and conditions of two or more licenses demand something impossible, like the case where one condition require an action and the other forbid said action. Both conditions can not be met at the same time and thus the licenses are incompatible.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what he meant by software license hygiene, but if it's what I imagine, it's a significant problem. Often people don't quite understand the licenses they choose and they get into trouble as a result. For example, there is a free software game that I follow which is licensed under the GPL. The author made a passing statement that the game is under the GPL, but none of text of the game is (it's an RPG, so there is a significant story). When I looked, they had mistakenly added the GPL to all the files that contained the story! They thought that since it wasn't source code, it couldn't be covered by the GPL. It's clearly a well intentioned mistake, but it's the kind of thing that can bite you later because someone will accept the license and use it for something you never intended. At that point it's a really big headache. It gets even more complicated when people try to mix licenses that are incompatible -- it works fine until somebody challenges it. At that point it's an absolute pain. The last thing you want on your project is to have someone say they are going to sue you because you don't have permission to use their code. It's really, really important for people to follow the licenses correctly and GitHub is in a wonderful place to help with that. It's a win for everybody. I would say even if people realise that they can't use GPL for some project because it is incompatible with the license for other code they are using, it's better than going for years and having a problem!
  - km3k 7y ago
    Yes that is a common problem. I could see GitHub creating tools to help you select a license and inform you how to use it properly, as well as having systems that show you how the license affects your project.
    - jsgo 7y ago
      I don't think Microsoft/GitHub would have any issue with doing a wizard-y license picker/builder (well, boiler plate existing licenses with fill in the blank for attribution, project name, and the like). They did add that little table at the top of LICENSE pages that checks off what rights and responsibilities the consumer has under the license so it seems they're fans of making the various licenses understandable. I think it is a good request though. I'm fond of MIT, but with the right wizard, I may also find that GPL or something else may be a better fit for what I'm working on.
- bregma 7y ago
  I believe he's referring to the fact that many if not most projects hosted on github have no license conditions at all. No license means no one except the original author can use the software, and anyone who even looks at the code runs the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. RMS is not saying "make everything GPL" (or at least, not in this context). He's just saying if you're going to publish source code, please make clear the condition under which it can be read or used.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    I would say github shouldn't even allow publicly visible code without a license.
    - askmike 7y ago
      Forcing coders to make legal choices is a sure way to make users happy.
      - scbrg 7y ago
        They already are making a legal choice when they choose to make the repo public. There is little point in not making that explicit.
      - phkahler 7y ago
        If you want to play in the pond, you should know how to swim.
    - thekyle 7y ago
      Technically, all GitHub repos have at least one license. That is the GitHub license: > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). > You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Why are you against clear licensing? That is strange. You want more ambiguity in licensing? Surely you mean something different.
nailer 7y ago
dang / sctb could you please change the link to the English one? Thanks.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jfifp 7y ago
  It's not only dang and sctb moderating this website! It's well known that there are other moderators as well, and also pg posts quite frequently using the nick name "nailer"
- grzm 7y ago
  The mods don't see every comment. The fastest way to get their attention is to email them using the contact link in the footer.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    They seem to do a pretty decent job with comments on the front page.

userbinator 7y ago

Agree strongly with the last two requests, but not so much the first one (but I guess it's to be expected for RMS.)

Macha 7y ago
What's so objectionable about that. Honestly one of the more annoying to find problems with GitHub (and npm) is MIT licensed software with GPL dependencies, and even if you want to have closed source software on GitHub, having a "this software is closed source" UI element is still better license hygiene without forcing everything open source. I think honestly this is something other providers (Google code when it was around, gitlab now) are much better at.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Um, GPL is not “closed source.”
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    GPL code is essentially "don't-touch-with-a-39-and-a-half-foot-pole source" to most people who want any control over their project or are developing in a professional setting.
    - de_watcher 7y ago
      You meant control over the users.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        I think it's mostly unfounded, but companies do avoid this for reasons other than wanting to directly control their users. I worked for a company where everything was Apache 2, BSD 3-clause, MIT, or similarly licensed. Since we distributed source regardless, this means less control over the users, even though it means they have the freedom to not pass it on to their own users. Our lawyers absolutely lost their shit at the suggestion that we include the GPL. Because a bunch of our customers absolutely lost their shit at the slightest hint of GPL, because they don't want to be sued for unintended virality.
        cxr 7y ago
        Hear that, folks? In a world that's increasingly focused on sustainability and funding for software development, programmers with business aspirations should take note: If you're working on something that you hope to (eventually?) make money from, but you also want to benefit from the collegial atmosphere of open source, then choose the GPL. This simple decision instantly eliminates a whole subset of would-be competitors, who you now don't have to worry about undermining your business or otherwise threatening your source of income while they rely on being able to use your own work against you, since the GPL automatically places your work in their do-not-touch category.
      - jimmaswell 7y ago
        Forcing your users to have to GPL any of their code based on your code is controlling them more than releasing under a more sane permissive license. It's ironic that GPL is the true restriction of freedom for all the virtues it touts.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        The GPL is quite clear in the responsibilities you have: protecting freedom requires taking away the right to be able to curtail it.
  - Macha 7y ago
    I guess my post wasn't clear that I was referring to two issues - I assumed the original poster took RMS's comment as "ban closed source from GitHub", and was pointing out that being clear on licensing is not the same thing as being open source only, and that an actual issue this causes for open source software is not-actually-MIT software.
- phkahler 7y ago
  Once you statically like that MIT licensed code to GPL licensed code, you have a GPL licences executable. If the source is provided, I think you're in compliance with the GPL. IANAL and that is a very interesting situation. That type of thing is why I think people need to choose one of: GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD (isn't that essentially MIT?). I dont see the point in other "open source" licenses, they primarily create compatibility issues.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true. You can freely use MIT code (including linking) in a GPL project so long as the source is available. In Rust most code is dual licensed as MIT or Apache 2. You can pick which one to use although IIRC Apache 2 is considered the "primary license" because it provides protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However Apache 2 isn't compatible with GPL.
    - belorn 7y ago
      > According to Stallman, MIT is compatible with GPL but the reverse isn't true What are you talking about? Let say we have code A licensed as MIT and code B licensed GPL. You can combine A with B and distribute it. You can combine B with A and distribute it. AB or BA is both a legal combination that a distributor can do. In both cases the distributor need to follow the condition of both MIT and GPL. You can not distribute AB and only follow GPL, or combine BA and only follow MIT. There is two ways to look at copyright licenses. The slightly incorrect but slightly easier way is to see them as a contract. In order to distribute you need to follow the conditions. If you have two contracts then you have two sets of conditions. Three contracts and three sets of conditions. The second way, which lawyers prefer as the more "true" perspective, is to see a copyright license as a list of permissions. Copyright law dictate that as a distributor you have no rights, so the license is the specific conditions in order to gain permission. It is like a airplane ticket where in order to travel you got to follow the rules and conditions or the airline. Countries can also have conditions and rules like visas, passports and enter/exiting laws. Thus in order to have permission to travel between countries you need to follow both sets of rules and conditions. Incompatibility occur when the rules and conditions of two or more licenses demand something impossible, like the case where one condition require an action and the other forbid said action. Both conditions can not be met at the same time and thus the licenses are incompatible.
mikekchar 7y ago
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by software license hygiene, but if it's what I imagine, it's a significant problem. Often people don't quite understand the licenses they choose and they get into trouble as a result. For example, there is a free software game that I follow which is licensed under the GPL. The author made a passing statement that the game is under the GPL, but none of text of the game is (it's an RPG, so there is a significant story). When I looked, they had mistakenly added the GPL to all the files that contained the story! They thought that since it wasn't source code, it couldn't be covered by the GPL. It's clearly a well intentioned mistake, but it's the kind of thing that can bite you later because someone will accept the license and use it for something you never intended. At that point it's a really big headache. It gets even more complicated when people try to mix licenses that are incompatible -- it works fine until somebody challenges it. At that point it's an absolute pain. The last thing you want on your project is to have someone say they are going to sue you because you don't have permission to use their code. It's really, really important for people to follow the licenses correctly and GitHub is in a wonderful place to help with that. It's a win for everybody. I would say even if people realise that they can't use GPL for some project because it is incompatible with the license for other code they are using, it's better than going for years and having a problem!
- km3k 7y ago
  Yes that is a common problem. I could see GitHub creating tools to help you select a license and inform you how to use it properly, as well as having systems that show you how the license affects your project.
  - jsgo 7y ago
    I don't think Microsoft/GitHub would have any issue with doing a wizard-y license picker/builder (well, boiler plate existing licenses with fill in the blank for attribution, project name, and the like). They did add that little table at the top of LICENSE pages that checks off what rights and responsibilities the consumer has under the license so it seems they're fans of making the various licenses understandable. I think it is a good request though. I'm fond of MIT, but with the right wizard, I may also find that GPL or something else may be a better fit for what I'm working on.
bregma 7y ago
I believe he's referring to the fact that many if not most projects hosted on github have no license conditions at all. No license means no one except the original author can use the software, and anyone who even looks at the code runs the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. RMS is not saying "make everything GPL" (or at least, not in this context). He's just saying if you're going to publish source code, please make clear the condition under which it can be read or used.
- phkahler 7y ago
  I would say github shouldn't even allow publicly visible code without a license.
  - askmike 7y ago
    Forcing coders to make legal choices is a sure way to make users happy.
    - scbrg 7y ago
      They already are making a legal choice when they choose to make the repo public. There is little point in not making that explicit.
    - phkahler 7y ago
      If you want to play in the pond, you should know how to swim.
  - thekyle 7y ago
    Technically, all GitHub repos have at least one license. That is the GitHub license: > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). > You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Why are you against clear licensing? That is strange. You want more ambiguity in licensing? Surely you mean something different.

nailer 7y ago

dang / sctb could you please change the link to the English one? Thanks.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jfifp 7y ago
It's not only dang and sctb moderating this website! It's well known that there are other moderators as well, and also pg posts quite frequently using the nick name "nailer"
grzm 7y ago
The mods don't see every comment. The fastest way to get their attention is to email them using the contact link in the footer.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  They seem to do a pretty decent job with comments on the front page.