2 ms·

> The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended. You (and the o

> The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended. You (and the other replies) are missing the main point of reciprocal/protective licenses like GPL: To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization". You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS. Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs.

jabl 6y ago
> To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization". But has the GPL accomplished any of this in practice? The Linux kernel rejected GPLv3 with it's tivoization clause, and for some embedded device it seems quite easy to avoid GPLv3 if you wanted. GPLv3, as it's adopted today, is just not a threat to evil companies that want to tivoize their products. > You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS. > Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs. Again, what has been accomplished here? AGPL has been soundly rejected, and plain GPL doesn't really protect against the FAANGs. It's not like if left-pad had been AGPLv3, all the FAANGs would have bought some expensive proprietary license to use that awesome library. In reality, nothing would have been gained by pushing away freeloading FAANGs. I'm not saying you're wrong to worry about FAANGs. I think massive economic inequality, and the extent to which economic wealth can be turned into political power is poisonous to democracy. I'm just increasingly skeptical that copyleft licensing is a meaningful tool to combat this. And no, I don't have answers either..

jabl 6y ago

> To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization". But has the GPL accomplished any of this in practice? The Linux kernel rejected GPLv3 with it's tivoization clause, and for some embedded device it seems quite easy to avoid GPLv3 if you wanted. GPLv3, as it's adopted today, is just not a threat to evil companies that want to tivoize their products. > You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS. > Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs. Again, what has been accomplished here? AGPL has been soundly rejected, and plain GPL doesn't really protect against the FAANGs. It's not like if left-pad had been AGPLv3, all the FAANGs would have bought some expensive proprietary license to use that awesome library. In reality, nothing would have been gained by pushing away freeloading FAANGs. I'm not saying you're wrong to worry about FAANGs. I think massive economic inequality, and the extent to which economic wealth can be turned into political power is poisonous to democracy. I'm just increasingly skeptical that copyleft licensing is a meaningful tool to combat this. And no, I don't have answers either..