4 ms·

This is why some people have fought hard to have some standards what is an acceptable FOSS license. Things would be much harder if we wouldn't have such standa

by hannob 6y ago

This is why some people have fought hard to have some standards what is an acceptable FOSS license. Things would be much harder if we wouldn't have such standards. Imagine a software ecosystem with a wild variety of licensing terms with all kinds of crazy clauses. Remember that the next time some company with a deceptive "it's not open source, but we surely want it to sound like open source" license comes along. I was downvoted plenty of times trying to argue for more honesty from those players.

davidfstr 6y ago
No license is going to satisfy everyone in all contexts. For example I cannot use GPL at work (based on my own rules as team lead) but am open to it in personal projects. And other folks would consider having something NOT GPL licensed to be suspect. It is not possible to provide a uniform license that will be acceptable to all in all circumstances.
- jpmoral 6y ago
  I don't think they meant that there should be One True Open-Source License but rather that open-source projects should pick one of the 'standard' ones (GPL, MIT, etc.) instead of writing their own.
  - davidfstr 6y ago
    Well, if by “open source” you mean broadly any software available whose code is viewable on the internet, you’re essentially advocating for no projects that use “nonstandard” licenses to exist. That seems like a waste if there would be otherwise be projects around with a nonstandard license that was acceptable to a subset of users. For example the CPython interpreter (the official interpreter for the Python language) does not use a standard license. Would you not want Python to exist?
    - mannerheim 6y ago
      Any permissive software license (which it seems CPython's is) is broadly interchangeable with any other, and can be used with both other permissive licenses and copyleft licenses like the GPL. That can't happen with any license that places restrictions on what it can be used for.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  Even the hardest core Stallmanites aren't unwilling to use BSD/MIT-licensed software, nor Stallman himself. In contrast, these sorts of licenses that restrict what the software can be used for are unequivocally condemned by the FSF.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
> Imagine a software ecosystem with a wild variety of licensing terms with all kinds of crazy clauses. People are dunking on trying to figure out what is considered "excessively gory". What does "welcoming and inclusive language" mean?
HideousKojima 6y ago
Stallman put it best many years ago: >I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. >The result would be a system that you could not count on for any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task. >How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti. His words are just as valid about this license as they are about the various "ethical open source" licenses that have proliferated in recent years, whether they be of the "don't let Amazon host our code" variety or the "totally not a thinly veiled vehicle for injecting social justice politics into software" sort.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Stallman is right but also he betrays his liberal leanings in that he accepts that it is okay for private profit makers to exploit whatever resources you produce. If licenses were only useful for personal, school, or research without a specific license from the publisher, that's not the end of the world and comports with the value system of the publisher. Removing the means of production from the marketplace is an anarchist/socialist idea. However, for something as fundamental as an operating system (so long as it is a commodity), it does make sense to have a liberalized base of restrictions on use. Injecting social justice politics is fine. Politics are present everywhere. People should express their opinions and live their lives in accordance with them. The US in particular has an obsession with pretending there is such a thing as apolitical when it comes to economic activity.

by hannob 6y ago

davidfstr 6y ago

No license is going to satisfy everyone in all contexts. For example I cannot use GPL at work (based on my own rules as team lead) but am open to it in personal projects. And other folks would consider having something NOT GPL licensed to be suspect. It is not possible to provide a uniform license that will be acceptable to all in all circumstances.

jpmoral 6y ago
I don't think they meant that there should be One True Open-Source License but rather that open-source projects should pick one of the 'standard' ones (GPL, MIT, etc.) instead of writing their own.
- davidfstr 6y ago
  Well, if by “open source” you mean broadly any software available whose code is viewable on the internet, you’re essentially advocating for no projects that use “nonstandard” licenses to exist. That seems like a waste if there would be otherwise be projects around with a nonstandard license that was acceptable to a subset of users. For example the CPython interpreter (the official interpreter for the Python language) does not use a standard license. Would you not want Python to exist?
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    Any permissive software license (which it seems CPython's is) is broadly interchangeable with any other, and can be used with both other permissive licenses and copyleft licenses like the GPL. That can't happen with any license that places restrictions on what it can be used for.
mannerheim 6y ago
Even the hardest core Stallmanites aren't unwilling to use BSD/MIT-licensed software, nor Stallman himself. In contrast, these sorts of licenses that restrict what the software can be used for are unequivocally condemned by the FSF.

bjt2n3904 6y ago

> Imagine a software ecosystem with a wild variety of licensing terms with all kinds of crazy clauses. People are dunking on trying to figure out what is considered "excessively gory". What does "welcoming and inclusive language" mean?

HideousKojima 6y ago

Stallman put it best many years ago: >I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. >The result would be a system that you could not count on for any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task. >How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti. His words are just as valid about this license as they are about the various "ethical open source" licenses that have proliferated in recent years, whether they be of the "don't let Amazon host our code" variety or the "totally not a thinly veiled vehicle for injecting social justice politics into software" sort.

tehjoker 6y ago
Stallman is right but also he betrays his liberal leanings in that he accepts that it is okay for private profit makers to exploit whatever resources you produce. If licenses were only useful for personal, school, or research without a specific license from the publisher, that's not the end of the world and comports with the value system of the publisher. Removing the means of production from the marketplace is an anarchist/socialist idea. However, for something as fundamental as an operating system (so long as it is a commodity), it does make sense to have a liberalized base of restrictions on use. Injecting social justice politics is fine. Politics are present everywhere. People should express their opinions and live their lives in accordance with them. The US in particular has an obsession with pretending there is such a thing as apolitical when it comes to economic activity.