4 ms·

Stallman's Law

48 points by crazypython 6y ago

benjaminjosephw 6y ago
This is why the MIT license is more problematic than it appears on the surface. Freedom that doesn't defend the rights of those without power (end-users) is only going to reinforce the status-quo and give the powerful more leverage. End-user friendly technology requires a better approach than laissez-faire software production even though it seems simple and innocuous enough. Perhaps we need to revisit the debates of the past in the context of what we know now about how influential and manipulative technology can be?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I think the big problem people have with the GPL is its viral nature; It “infects” everything it touches. I’ve heard this complaint many times from developers. So, for a hypothetical Program A using Library B, MIT sacrifices user freedom (access to code for A) for developer freedom (ability to use B without open sourcing A). GPL, OTOH, sacrifices developer freedom for user freedom. When I started looking at less “viral” licenses (such as MIT, BSD, etc.) like this, it made sense why developers would prefer not to use the GPL. I don’t think it’s right, but it makes sense.
  - lucasyvas 6y ago
    Only speaking personally, I've never felt this way about the GPL. The virality is a feature that I really like as a developer. It ensures the changes stay open which is the true nature of open source for me. I find that business is the first to scoff at this, but just because your software is GPL doesn't mean your code can be readily "stolen". There's plenty of complexity in actually getting that code to users that can make it quite difficult for others to replicate your success. That said, there are licenses that I also like that are weaker, like LGPL and MPL 2.0. I'm often surprised MIT is chosen. Apache 2.0 is more robust due to explicitness.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      > There's plenty of complexity in actually getting that code to users that can make it quite difficult for others to replicate your success. That's true when the competitors are of comparable size/ability. Not necessarily equal, but still comparable on a similar scale. However, the likes of Amazon, Google, Microsoft easily take e.g. Redis or Postgres or Mongo or a variety of other products, and "get that code to users" by SaaS means -- which they can do at least as well as the original developer/copyright-holder, and their "vertical" integration (e.g. AWS) makes their offer superior to the original developer. (They can easily do the same without the source code, by developing their own clean-or-mostly-clean-room implementation, but the internal barrier for them to do that is much, much higher).
  - shikoba 6y ago
    You got it. GPL is about user freedom only. It doesn't protect freedom of those who wants to be free to restrict freedom of users.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      > It doesn't protect freedom of those who wants to be free to restrict freedom of users. In the FSF/GNU philosophy, that's power rather than freedom. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html
  - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    That's true in so far as the developer is also not a user of the software, or associated softwares in the space. Which happens more often than random.
schappim 6y ago
Stallman's Law: “Now that corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance or change in technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat its users.”

48 points by crazypython 6y ago

This is why the MIT license is more problematic than it appears on the surface. Freedom that doesn't defend the rights of those without power (end-users) is only going to reinforce the status-quo and give the powerful more leverage. End-user friendly technology requires a better approach than laissez-faire software production even though it seems simple and innocuous enough. Perhaps we need to revisit the debates of the past in the context of what we know now about how influential and manipulative technology can be?

colejohnson66 6y ago
I think the big problem people have with the GPL is its viral nature; It “infects” everything it touches. I’ve heard this complaint many times from developers. So, for a hypothetical Program A using Library B, MIT sacrifices user freedom (access to code for A) for developer freedom (ability to use B without open sourcing A). GPL, OTOH, sacrifices developer freedom for user freedom. When I started looking at less “viral” licenses (such as MIT, BSD, etc.) like this, it made sense why developers would prefer not to use the GPL. I don’t think it’s right, but it makes sense.
- lucasyvas 6y ago
  Only speaking personally, I've never felt this way about the GPL. The virality is a feature that I really like as a developer. It ensures the changes stay open which is the true nature of open source for me. I find that business is the first to scoff at this, but just because your software is GPL doesn't mean your code can be readily "stolen". There's plenty of complexity in actually getting that code to users that can make it quite difficult for others to replicate your success. That said, there are licenses that I also like that are weaker, like LGPL and MPL 2.0. I'm often surprised MIT is chosen. Apache 2.0 is more robust due to explicitness.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    > There's plenty of complexity in actually getting that code to users that can make it quite difficult for others to replicate your success. That's true when the competitors are of comparable size/ability. Not necessarily equal, but still comparable on a similar scale. However, the likes of Amazon, Google, Microsoft easily take e.g. Redis or Postgres or Mongo or a variety of other products, and "get that code to users" by SaaS means -- which they can do at least as well as the original developer/copyright-holder, and their "vertical" integration (e.g. AWS) makes their offer superior to the original developer. (They can easily do the same without the source code, by developing their own clean-or-mostly-clean-room implementation, but the internal barrier for them to do that is much, much higher).
- shikoba 6y ago
  You got it. GPL is about user freedom only. It doesn't protect freedom of those who wants to be free to restrict freedom of users.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > It doesn't protect freedom of those who wants to be free to restrict freedom of users. In the FSF/GNU philosophy, that's power rather than freedom. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  That's true in so far as the developer is also not a user of the software, or associated softwares in the space. Which happens more often than random.

schappim 6y ago

Stallman's Law: “Now that corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance or change in technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat its users.”