3 ms·

I agree with you that this is a problem, but I don't see how you can fix that with licensing. I mean, I guess you can add a clause that says "you can't use thi

I agree with you that this is a problem, but I don't see how you can fix that with licensing. I mean, I guess you can add a clause that says "you can't use this software if you do things that the author doesn't like with it", but the point of the FSF software licenses is that they don't limit what you do with the software in any way, just how you can distribute the software itself. This is like trying to stop child porn using the license for encryption software.

BuildTheRobots 6y ago
The GPL is all about protecting user freedoms. AGPL extended this to not just count for devices in your possession but to systems you remotely interact with. Adding a clause that says you must allow users their own data as well as a copy of the source code doesn't seem like a completely out there extension of those protections.
- chaosite 6y ago
  The GPL is all about protecting a users freedom to use their software in any way they'd like, and correctly notes that users require access to source code in order to do that. Quoting verbatim from the preamble, "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." It doesn't really discuss other sorts of freedom. I'd also note that RMS is famed for having (and sharing) many opinions, many of them specifically on the sorts of freedom we're discussing now, yet no such language has ever appeared in the FSF's licenses.
  - BuildTheRobots 6y ago
    > The GPL is all about protecting a users freedom to use their software in any way they'd like, and correctly notes that users require access to source code in order to do that. I'm still tempted to argue that if I want to run the software in whatever way I like - in this case mimicking someone else's production system, then I'm going to need access to both the source code as well as _my_ user-data so I can use the software to host my own user data.

BuildTheRobots 6y ago

The GPL is all about protecting user freedoms. AGPL extended this to not just count for devices in your possession but to systems you remotely interact with. Adding a clause that says you must allow users their own data as well as a copy of the source code doesn't seem like a completely out there extension of those protections.

chaosite 6y ago
The GPL is all about protecting a users freedom to use their software in any way they'd like, and correctly notes that users require access to source code in order to do that. Quoting verbatim from the preamble, "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." It doesn't really discuss other sorts of freedom. I'd also note that RMS is famed for having (and sharing) many opinions, many of them specifically on the sorts of freedom we're discussing now, yet no such language has ever appeared in the FSF's licenses.
- BuildTheRobots 6y ago
  > The GPL is all about protecting a users freedom to use their software in any way they'd like, and correctly notes that users require access to source code in order to do that. I'm still tempted to argue that if I want to run the software in whatever way I like - in this case mimicking someone else's production system, then I'm going to need access to both the source code as well as _my_ user-data so I can use the software to host my own user data.