3 ms·

> I feel when we're thinking about gatekeeping who and uses our software and why, we're not really doing open source anymore. I agree, roughly, but I don’t thi

> I feel when we're thinking about gatekeeping who and uses our software and why, we're not really doing open source anymore. I agree, roughly, but I don’t think it’s really gatekeeping if it’s their choice not to use the software. The AGPL explicitly gives them (and everyone else) the right to use it! They just have to contribute back if they do, which is apparently too unpalatable for them. By comparison, I’m not in favor of some of the newer licenses that attempt to carve out usage restrictions. I’ll fight the Commons Clause wherever I see it. But just requiring that they contribute back? I think that’s fair.

kazinator 7y ago
"Free" now means "Free not to use if you don't like the license"? I exercise my choice not to use Adobe Photoshop; instead I use GIMP. Is therefore Adobe Photoshop free software?
- ryukafalz 7y ago
  >Is therefore Adobe Photoshop free software? Certainly not! Adobe Photoshop severely restricts you as the user; for example, you're not permitted to send a copy to a friend, or to fix a bug that's bothering you, or to contribute that fix so others can benefit from it. GIMP on the other hand is free software because anyone (including Google!) can use it for any purpose, distribute their changes, etc. As a clarifying point, "free" here (as defined in the Free Software Definition) refers to freedom for the user, not for the developer, hosting provider, etc. A license can impose restrictions on the developer to provide more freedom to the user. For example, if you're hosting a Mastodon instance (AGPL), there's a sense in which you're the user, but to a much greater extent the people using your instance are the users. The AGPL ensures that they have all the freedoms you were given by the developer of the software.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    A "free for non-commercial use" license of a shareware program also ensures that whoever I give it to next has all the freedoms I was given by the developer of the software. I'm free to make non-commercial use of it, so is the next person. A freely redistributed software whose license requires that it must be used while executing a headstand also ensures that when I pass it on, the next person has all the same freedoms. I'm free to use it, as long as I'm standing on my head; so is the next person. It's basically a tautology of all licenses that allow copying, which do not distinguish among users, or among first hand versus second hand recipients.

kazinator 7y ago

"Free" now means "Free not to use if you don't like the license"? I exercise my choice not to use Adobe Photoshop; instead I use GIMP. Is therefore Adobe Photoshop free software?

ryukafalz 7y ago
>Is therefore Adobe Photoshop free software? Certainly not! Adobe Photoshop severely restricts you as the user; for example, you're not permitted to send a copy to a friend, or to fix a bug that's bothering you, or to contribute that fix so others can benefit from it. GIMP on the other hand is free software because anyone (including Google!) can use it for any purpose, distribute their changes, etc. As a clarifying point, "free" here (as defined in the Free Software Definition) refers to freedom for the user, not for the developer, hosting provider, etc. A license can impose restrictions on the developer to provide more freedom to the user. For example, if you're hosting a Mastodon instance (AGPL), there's a sense in which you're the user, but to a much greater extent the people using your instance are the users. The AGPL ensures that they have all the freedoms you were given by the developer of the software.
- kazinator 7y ago
  A "free for non-commercial use" license of a shareware program also ensures that whoever I give it to next has all the freedoms I was given by the developer of the software. I'm free to make non-commercial use of it, so is the next person. A freely redistributed software whose license requires that it must be used while executing a headstand also ensures that when I pass it on, the next person has all the same freedoms. I'm free to use it, as long as I'm standing on my head; so is the next person. It's basically a tautology of all licenses that allow copying, which do not distinguish among users, or among first hand versus second hand recipients.