3 ms·

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 produc

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.

HideousKojima 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. Which leads to fun situations where you have to determine what is or isn't "commercial use." Truly free and open licenses make that a non-issue, meaning software using them are more likely to become widely adopted, which is the entire point of the FOSS movement. >Injecting social justice politics is fine. Politics are present everywhere. People should express their opinions and live their lives in accordance with them. People are free to believe whatever they like, but creating (largely legally unenforceable) licenses to do so only hurts the adoption of free software (and helps large commercial entities developing proprietary software). See, for example, Bruce Perens's comments on the Berkeley SPICE license, which explicitly disallowed use by the police of South Africa. Even after Apartheid ended the police of South Africa were barred from use: https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic-license-cant-work/ https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic... Any license that places restrictions on what software can be used for makes the entire free software world a minefield.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I would agree with that. I guess that's the actual struggle: get people to agree that preserving the ecosystem as a whole is more important than anything else. I love free software but I 100% can understand differing perspectives. Commercial use is pretty easy to understand though: are you making money in excess of costs and are not non-profit? Commercial use. I suppose there are cases where a non-profit can violate the spirit of the law. That's for the courts to decide or you can make it clear by saying non-profits are okay no matter what.
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    Ignoring the ambiguity of commercial use for which CC-BY-NC licenses have long been criticised for, there are very obvious reasons why they don't work for software. Let's say we have a non-commercial photo-editing application, call it NCIMP. You're a hobbyist photographer, so your buddy wants to pay you to take wedding photos for him. That's a commercial use, right? Better get that commercial license... which you might not be able to get if there are hundreds of contributors to NCIMP and they don't have any organisation to whom they're assigning copyright. So from the end user perspective, either you're paying an organisation for a commercial license, in which case it's not that different from just getting a license for Photoshop (sure, you'd have to pirate Photoshop to get it for free, but they only really go after commercial users for copyright infringement anyway and they mainly rely on employees to snitch), or you've sunk time into learning how to use a photo-editing application to develop skills you can't even accept compensation for... At which point, you may as well just have learned how to use Photoshop to begin with; if you're starting to learn photography even as a hobby, why choose to either limit yourself to never being able to take a photography gig or have to relearn new software for the same task? Even if you don't plan on doing any paid work, it doesn't make sense to use it unless the software is much better, which it probably won't be if it's being developed by exclusively hobbyist photographers who themselves can't use it for any professional work.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      I wonder if it would make sense to have a setup similar to music where commercial users of software pay a fee to an organization that distributes money to the producers. Music and books have a lot of similarities to software in that the cost of copying is nearly free and people want to use stuff everywhere.

HideousKojima 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. Which leads to fun situations where you have to determine what is or isn't "commercial use." Truly free and open licenses make that a non-issue, meaning software using them are more likely to become widely adopted, which is the entire point of the FOSS movement. >Injecting social justice politics is fine. Politics are present everywhere. People should express their opinions and live their lives in accordance with them. People are free to believe whatever they like, but creating (largely legally unenforceable) licenses to do so only hurts the adoption of free software (and helps large commercial entities developing proprietary software). See, for example, Bruce Perens's comments on the Berkeley SPICE license, which explicitly disallowed use by the police of South Africa. Even after Apartheid ended the police of South Africa were barred from use: https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic-license-cant-work/ https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic... Any license that places restrictions on what software can be used for makes the entire free software world a minefield.

tehjoker 6y ago
I would agree with that. I guess that's the actual struggle: get people to agree that preserving the ecosystem as a whole is more important than anything else. I love free software but I 100% can understand differing perspectives. Commercial use is pretty easy to understand though: are you making money in excess of costs and are not non-profit? Commercial use. I suppose there are cases where a non-profit can violate the spirit of the law. That's for the courts to decide or you can make it clear by saying non-profits are okay no matter what.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  Ignoring the ambiguity of commercial use for which CC-BY-NC licenses have long been criticised for, there are very obvious reasons why they don't work for software. Let's say we have a non-commercial photo-editing application, call it NCIMP. You're a hobbyist photographer, so your buddy wants to pay you to take wedding photos for him. That's a commercial use, right? Better get that commercial license... which you might not be able to get if there are hundreds of contributors to NCIMP and they don't have any organisation to whom they're assigning copyright. So from the end user perspective, either you're paying an organisation for a commercial license, in which case it's not that different from just getting a license for Photoshop (sure, you'd have to pirate Photoshop to get it for free, but they only really go after commercial users for copyright infringement anyway and they mainly rely on employees to snitch), or you've sunk time into learning how to use a photo-editing application to develop skills you can't even accept compensation for... At which point, you may as well just have learned how to use Photoshop to begin with; if you're starting to learn photography even as a hobby, why choose to either limit yourself to never being able to take a photography gig or have to relearn new software for the same task? Even if you don't plan on doing any paid work, it doesn't make sense to use it unless the software is much better, which it probably won't be if it's being developed by exclusively hobbyist photographers who themselves can't use it for any professional work.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    I wonder if it would make sense to have a setup similar to music where commercial users of software pay a fee to an organization that distributes money to the producers. Music and books have a lot of similarities to software in that the cost of copying is nearly free and people want to use stuff everywhere.