5 ms·

The goal of the FSF is "to promote computer user freedom". By "freedom" they mean the four freedoms of the Free Software definition: https://www.gnu.org/philos

by mrob 6y ago

The goal of the FSF is "to promote computer user freedom". By "freedom" they mean the four freedoms of the Free Software definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Your proposal contradicts freedom 0, so the FSF cannot support it without abandoning their mission. To do so is both undesirable and unnecessary, because the alleged "exploitation of software developers" is in most cases just people doing what those developers permitted when they chose to use a permissive license. The correct solution is encouraging developers to choose more suitable Free Software licenses, and the FSF already does this by advocating copyleft licenses in most circumstances. The AGPL especially has strong protections for the four freedoms, which makes it very difficult to "exploit" developers who use it.

varispeed 6y ago
Big corporations sponsor FSF then this is an understandable stance as what I am proposing would hurt their bottom line. Current situation saves them huge amounts of money from spending on R&D because developers all over the world will develop something for free (believing the PR around open source) and then if something catches on, big corporation can use it of appropriate it if you will. Sometimes developers from within those companies feel bad and then ask the corporation if they could contribute something. This is then again is turned into PR piece saying that you see we give back! Best outcome for the original authors is getting hired on mediocre salary at one of those corporations or having a cool entry in CV. I think you are missing the point and my idea does not contradict user freedom as users will continue to use it for free.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  The philosophy of freedom of open source that RMS and others have been developing pre-dates any significant big corporation sponsorship. (Many of the particular big corporations using open source now didn't even exist then). I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other. But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations. Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source. So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    > But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations. I don't dispute the fact that it is coherent, but it is serving the interest of big corporations. Could you explain why do you think it doesn't? > Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source. Big corporations shouldn't be treated the same way as individual users, as this is facilitating exploitation. Maybe indeed in the beginnings of FSF this was not thought about, but when big corporations realised this is benefiting them in many ways they started sponsoring the movement to keep the status quo. > So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong. This is a fallacy. This is the same problem as with unpaid internships - you could say if you can't do unpaid internship, you can find company that will pay for your time, but why would companies do that if they can get free labour? This creates disadvantage for people from unprivileged backgrounds as they cannot afford to gain experience through unpaid internship as they have bills to pay and families to feed. That's why in many countries unpaid internships are illegal. I am not surprised that this idea gets pushed back here, as there is too many people here who wouldn't like coporations they work for to finally start paying.
    - jrochkind1 6y ago
      I don't know how useful it is to continue this I don't think we're going to get anywhere else, but I wanted to defend myself against your accusation and say that I do not work for a "big corporation", I work for a small non-profit, intentionally (and making less money than I probably could if I were trying to maximize my income, but enough money, and I get to write open source on the clock).
hedora 6y ago
> Your proposal contradicts freedom 0 Not true. The AGPL solves the problem elegantly. IMHO, the FSF compromised its principles by not closing the “running a binary for someone doesn’t count as distributing the software to them” loophole. Their compromised ethical stance is what has led them to irrelevance. As it is, GPL is functionally equivalent to BSD licensing for most of the industry (and essentially all of cloud computing).

by mrob 6y ago

varispeed 6y ago

Big corporations sponsor FSF then this is an understandable stance as what I am proposing would hurt their bottom line. Current situation saves them huge amounts of money from spending on R&D because developers all over the world will develop something for free (believing the PR around open source) and then if something catches on, big corporation can use it of appropriate it if you will. Sometimes developers from within those companies feel bad and then ask the corporation if they could contribute something. This is then again is turned into PR piece saying that you see we give back! Best outcome for the original authors is getting hired on mediocre salary at one of those corporations or having a cool entry in CV. I think you are missing the point and my idea does not contradict user freedom as users will continue to use it for free.

jrochkind1 6y ago
The philosophy of freedom of open source that RMS and others have been developing pre-dates any significant big corporation sponsorship. (Many of the particular big corporations using open source now didn't even exist then). I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other. But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations. Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source. So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.
- varispeed 6y ago
  > But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations. I don't dispute the fact that it is coherent, but it is serving the interest of big corporations. Could you explain why do you think it doesn't? > Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source. Big corporations shouldn't be treated the same way as individual users, as this is facilitating exploitation. Maybe indeed in the beginnings of FSF this was not thought about, but when big corporations realised this is benefiting them in many ways they started sponsoring the movement to keep the status quo. > So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong. This is a fallacy. This is the same problem as with unpaid internships - you could say if you can't do unpaid internship, you can find company that will pay for your time, but why would companies do that if they can get free labour? This creates disadvantage for people from unprivileged backgrounds as they cannot afford to gain experience through unpaid internship as they have bills to pay and families to feed. That's why in many countries unpaid internships are illegal. I am not surprised that this idea gets pushed back here, as there is too many people here who wouldn't like coporations they work for to finally start paying.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    I don't know how useful it is to continue this I don't think we're going to get anywhere else, but I wanted to defend myself against your accusation and say that I do not work for a "big corporation", I work for a small non-profit, intentionally (and making less money than I probably could if I were trying to maximize my income, but enough money, and I get to write open source on the clock).

hedora 6y ago

> Your proposal contradicts freedom 0 Not true. The AGPL solves the problem elegantly. IMHO, the FSF compromised its principles by not closing the “running a binary for someone doesn’t count as distributing the software to them” loophole. Their compromised ethical stance is what has led them to irrelevance. As it is, GPL is functionally equivalent to BSD licensing for most of the industry (and essentially all of cloud computing).