3 ms·
> 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 owni
by sedachv 7y ago
> 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.
That is a really unfair way to describe things:
https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
The real problem is corporate propaganda to discourage people from licensing their work under the GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa_TlRdtG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa_TlRdtG8
- grumbel 7y agoTheir "answer" misses the problem. A cloud solution running AGPL is not any more free than one that doesn't. The issue is Tivoization 2.0. The AGPL allows you to get the source, but since you don't own the server, you can't really do much with it. Same with the Javascript, sure, you get the source in a non-obscured fashion, but that doesn't buy you anything, the data is still on the server and how much or how little you are allowed to access it is controlled by the owner of the server, not that bit of Javascript. To bring Free Software into the cloud age you would need licenses that go beyond the source code and regulate how the data on the server is stored, manipulated and distributed. The European GDPR does that and there are a tiny few licenses like the Open Data Commons Open Database License that do that. But from the FSF there has been pretty much nothing.