5 ms·

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether

by jgon 7y ago

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel like everyone would have to agree on with RMS is that he was strident in his belief in the Free Software movement and refused to compromise in ways that initially seemed intransigent, and were later revealed to be prescient. I worry that both Gnu and the FSF will move more and more toward being co-opted by the corporate "open source" movement as people less obstinate that RMS take charge and let themselves and the "overton window" of Free Software be dragged further into the realm of captive corporatism. Of course the counter to this is that retaining RMS as the leader alienates enough people to weaken the movement equally, and that may be true, I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is that he published The Right to Read in 1997 and a year later we had the DMCA and things have only accelerated from there. I guess we'll see where the road takes us, but as someone who remembers the excitement and energy that surrounded the web, linux, firefox etc etc, it feels like nowadays open source reigns supreme and it's all just a bunch of free work for corporations to scoop up, stick a web interface on (or containerize), and give back none of the same freedoms they make use of. I just hope we don't look back on this moment (from our locked down walled garden devices) as when the real decline of a true free software commons started.

shadowgovt 7y ago
It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an answer to this besides "boycott it," which feels an awful lot like horse-riders suggesting we deal with the problems with cars by never owning or supporting ownership of them.
- swsieber 7y ago
  Well, AGPL was the answer to that issue, but it hasn't really done much. I think part of the impact was things like GitHub recommending the MIT license.
  - eitland 7y ago
    Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".
    - sedachv 7y ago
      Or you can stop spreading the FUD and point people to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
      - eitland 7y ago
        It might very well be that this is more of an education and explanation problem. My point still stands: I don't personally know a single person who is able to explain AGPL.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        Is it not "if you take AGPL code and run it on your server and make it available to other people, you need to give them the code to whatever you're running"?
        ghaff 7y ago
        It's the "whatever you're running" that gets complicated if you're using the AGPL code in conjunction with a bunch of other code to deliver some service to customers. What are the rules around how that other code is allowed to interact with the AGPL code before it has to be made available as well?
the_af 7y ago
> I worry that both Gnu and the FSF will move more and more toward being co-opted by the corporate "open source" movement as people less obstinate that RMS take charge and let themselves and the "overton window" of Free Software be dragged further into the realm of captive corporatism. It's already happening. I saw this posted recently, either here on HN or on Twitter, by someone allegedly from the FSF/GNU camp: https://freesw.org/ https://freesw.org/. The language of that page is worrying. I think the "overton window" you mentioned really captures the essence of the problem. Principled people like RMS are needed, even when their positions are sometimes impractical, because otherwise the "window" will shift too much to the side of nonfree software, well past the middle point of compromise. I've had people here on HN argue with me that Free Software is "not about users rights" (i.e. the Open Source position) and that it's exactly like Open Source, and that "Free" Software doesn't mean what I -- or the FSF/GNU -- claim it means. Without RMS, this narrative will gain momentum :(
zimbatm 7y ago
RMS is too black and white. It was probably a good thing to get the project started but I believe that it's counter-productive now. It's a bit like some people are good founders, but then you need a proper CEO to run the company. Having the project switch leader might actually be a good thing for the GNU project. But like you said, we'll see where it goes, it might not be all bad.
- asjw 7y ago
  Th FSF is not a company. It's like saying that the Pope is too religious...

by jgon 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an answer to this besides "boycott it," which feels an awful lot like horse-riders suggesting we deal with the problems with cars by never owning or supporting ownership of them.

swsieber 7y ago
Well, AGPL was the answer to that issue, but it hasn't really done much. I think part of the impact was things like GitHub recommending the MIT license.
- eitland 7y ago
  Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".
  - sedachv 7y ago
    Or you can stop spreading the FUD and point people to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
    - eitland 7y ago
      It might very well be that this is more of an education and explanation problem. My point still stands: I don't personally know a single person who is able to explain AGPL.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Is it not "if you take AGPL code and run it on your server and make it available to other people, you need to give them the code to whatever you're running"?
        ghaff 7y ago
        It's the "whatever you're running" that gets complicated if you're using the AGPL code in conjunction with a bunch of other code to deliver some service to customers. What are the rules around how that other code is allowed to interact with the AGPL code before it has to be made available as well?

the_af 7y ago

> I worry that both Gnu and the FSF will move more and more toward being co-opted by the corporate "open source" movement as people less obstinate that RMS take charge and let themselves and the "overton window" of Free Software be dragged further into the realm of captive corporatism. It's already happening. I saw this posted recently, either here on HN or on Twitter, by someone allegedly from the FSF/GNU camp: https://freesw.org/ https://freesw.org/. The language of that page is worrying. I think the "overton window" you mentioned really captures the essence of the problem. Principled people like RMS are needed, even when their positions are sometimes impractical, because otherwise the "window" will shift too much to the side of nonfree software, well past the middle point of compromise. I've had people here on HN argue with me that Free Software is "not about users rights" (i.e. the Open Source position) and that it's exactly like Open Source, and that "Free" Software doesn't mean what I -- or the FSF/GNU -- claim it means. Without RMS, this narrative will gain momentum :(

zimbatm 7y ago

RMS is too black and white. It was probably a good thing to get the project started but I believe that it's counter-productive now. It's a bit like some people are good founders, but then you need a proper CEO to run the company. Having the project switch leader might actually be a good thing for the GNU project. But like you said, we'll see where it goes, it might not be all bad.

asjw 7y ago
Th FSF is not a company. It's like saying that the Pope is too religious...