3 ms·

Or, maybe the whole impetus behind the free software movement isn't wacko bullshit after all... We had a solution and everyone pissed on it because the misinfo

by dcow 6y ago

Or, maybe the whole impetus behind the free software movement isn't wacko bullshit after all... We had a solution and everyone pissed on it because the misinformed and perhaps intellectually lazy lawyers and leaders and yes even engineers convinced everyone that the GPL was unfit for a capitalist society. “Was” is admittedly unfair because free software is not actually dead. It’s just popularly dead. If this type of crap actually outrages you, it’s not GDPR that we need (it makes no sense if you think about it, too), it’s smarter consumers and more courageous engineers/leaders. Go speak with your feet and use free software products. And help breath life into a culture that has been wounded by greed.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
At the risk of repeating the "Stallman was right" meme, Stallman really was right about this stuff. The more I work in and with tech, the more I'm appreciating GNU/FSF philosophy. Some time ago I finally understood what's the point of GPL vs. just Open Source - the former is written with end users in mind, not developers. And unfortunately, these days not only developers aren't end users, they're very often working against end users.
- smichel17 6y ago
  Yep. Permissive licenses (MIT et al) maximize freedom for developers. Copyleft licenses place sometimes-frustrating restrictions on developers in order to guarantee more freedom for end users. I like to compare it to laws against slavery. Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. or any abuse of power imbalances.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. I'm still going to prefer MIT but this is probably the best rhetoric I've seen in favor of copyleft.
ohazi 6y ago
We need a free hardware movement.
- dcow 6y ago
  Hardware is, in fact, exactly how the free software movement was born. Stallman couldn't service his Xerox copier due to proprietary software and license restrictions. Sound familiar? It has always been about combatting the artificial control companies have individually and collectively to dictate how users interact with hardware they own due to proprietary unfree software.
sukilot 6y ago
Convinced who, exactly? Free software isn't illegal. You can run Linux and not buy IoT/IoS junk. Yes, you might have to decline Netflix and Disney. The only place consumers are screwed is when they get stuck with monopolists like John Deere -- and no one got "convinced" there, just screwed.
- dcow 6y ago
  Have you ever actually had a discussion about building and running a business around the free software model where you GPL all your software and charge for services? It just doesn't compute with most people who consider themselves leaders in the software industry. Stallman is just a crazy whacko and his license unfit for serious business. That's the summary of the stance I've encountered most of the time. I'm simply saying people don't take the free software movement seriously and if you as consumer advocates and developers get frustrated by this fact you don't need to invent a "GDPR for software interoperability" you just need to advocate for software that protects consumers. And you need to do so even in the face of uneducated and uncultured business leaders, which takes courage.
  - vfclists 6y ago
    Which part of the GPL being focused on end users don't you understand? The GPL was not created to help businesses, it was created to help end users, which for the most part means people with the know-how to understand software and improve on it or extend it for themselves.

by dcow 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

At the risk of repeating the "Stallman was right" meme, Stallman really was right about this stuff. The more I work in and with tech, the more I'm appreciating GNU/FSF philosophy. Some time ago I finally understood what's the point of GPL vs. just Open Source - the former is written with end users in mind, not developers. And unfortunately, these days not only developers aren't end users, they're very often working against end users.

smichel17 6y ago
Yep. Permissive licenses (MIT et al) maximize freedom for developers. Copyleft licenses place sometimes-frustrating restrictions on developers in order to guarantee more freedom for end users. I like to compare it to laws against slavery. Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. or any abuse of power imbalances.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. I'm still going to prefer MIT but this is probably the best rhetoric I've seen in favor of copyleft.

ohazi 6y ago

We need a free hardware movement.

dcow 6y ago
Hardware is, in fact, exactly how the free software movement was born. Stallman couldn't service his Xerox copier due to proprietary software and license restrictions. Sound familiar? It has always been about combatting the artificial control companies have individually and collectively to dictate how users interact with hardware they own due to proprietary unfree software.

sukilot 6y ago

Convinced who, exactly? Free software isn't illegal. You can run Linux and not buy IoT/IoS junk. Yes, you might have to decline Netflix and Disney. The only place consumers are screwed is when they get stuck with monopolists like John Deere -- and no one got "convinced" there, just screwed.

dcow 6y ago
Have you ever actually had a discussion about building and running a business around the free software model where you GPL all your software and charge for services? It just doesn't compute with most people who consider themselves leaders in the software industry. Stallman is just a crazy whacko and his license unfit for serious business. That's the summary of the stance I've encountered most of the time. I'm simply saying people don't take the free software movement seriously and if you as consumer advocates and developers get frustrated by this fact you don't need to invent a "GDPR for software interoperability" you just need to advocate for software that protects consumers. And you need to do so even in the face of uneducated and uncultured business leaders, which takes courage.
- vfclists 6y ago
  Which part of the GPL being focused on end users don't you understand? The GPL was not created to help businesses, it was created to help end users, which for the most part means people with the know-how to understand software and improve on it or extend it for themselves.