6 ms·

I admit I did not read the whole essay, but I think the idea of free software is more relevant today than ever, and is only getting more so. In fact, I think we

I admit I did not read the whole essay, but I think the idea of free software is more relevant today than ever, and is only getting more so. In fact, I think we're approaching the "runaway" part of an exponential curve. We're in a place where non-programmers and non-hackers are waking up to the importance of transparency and data ownership, and there's no way to achieve that without free software. I like the idea of public software mentioned in the article, which I understand to be software which is fully transparent and verifiable by everyone, which also sounds a lot like free software. I think the term "public" is more understandable by a non-technical person, and I may adopt using it after some consideration.

jariel 6y ago
I think you're maybe confusing 'Free Software' in the FSF sense, and just 'free' or 'open' software in the broadest sense. Open/Free/Public software is obviously very useful. But it's the 'copyleft' stuff that I think the author is taking umbrage with. It's arguably we don't really need copyleft to do any of the things you indicate as being important.
- jordigh 6y ago
  The FSF has never said that free software must be copylefted. The article itself says that De Icaza and Stallman agreed that open source and free software are the same set of software and the only difference is the intent of the person who is going to use that software.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    Jordi, by attacking RMS at this very moment you are joining people such as the author of this article, Microsoft and Google who want to destroy Free Software and Open Source alike. You are right on your views about leadership, but in practice you are acting as an enemy agent destroying free software from within. This is very saddening and embarrassing.
    - jordigh 6y ago
      RMS is not free software, and it's very distressing that people think he is. This is a cult of personality.
      - rjzzleep 6y ago
        No it's not, most people DON'T like his personality. It's the exact opposite. He's tolerated because of his views and actions on free software.
        jordigh 6y ago
        "Cult of personality" doesn't literally mean someone's personality. It means making a cult out of a person. The way people are saying that attack rms is attacking free software itself is very much a cult of personality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality rms is not free software. The 2000 signatories of the letter are free software. We are a community much larger than a single man. Seeing the signatories of that letter is like seeing all of my old friends. I know that guy from debconf and that one from pycon and oh yeah we used to hang out in that irc channel man remember when we worked together on that bug.
        rjzzleep 6y ago
        People are attacking the FSF BECAUSE of stallman. YOU and your lot are the people that are making him a cult of personality. Again, he is a quirky old man who is in that position, because of his contributions and his views. I sat next to him and I never particularly liked him. But this is the same shit that you people did when you destroyed Mozilla to make an example out of Brendan Eich only to get him replaced with the Chief of Marketing and then wondering why Mozilla's direction is weird. You don't get to turn this into a cult of personality yourself, then attack it and then blame the other side for it. Your logic here is nothing short of insane. I don't see you calling for the tearing down of founding fathers statues and the US constitutions. All but 3 of them were slave owners, so probably have a bunch of cruelties they did while they were alive.
  - wrycoder 6y ago
    The difference is the intent of the person who RELEASES the software. Free software under the GPL is deliberately restrictive. Put briefly, it’s designed to prevent someone from taking your software and releasing it under a license more restrictive than the GPL itself. It enforces the right to run the software, study it, distribute changed versions, and benefit from other people’s changes. With “open source”, meaning something like the MIT license, anyone can take the software you wrote, change it to add features, wrap it up in a fancy package, and sell it without source code access. You wouldn’t be able to even run the new version without buying a copy. Stallman has been explaining this for nearly forty years. He even wrote a book about it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s...
adwn 6y ago
> In fact, I think we're approaching the "runaway" part of an exponential curve. Tangential nitpick: There's no "runaway" part of an exponential curve. At every point along the x-axis (typically time), the curve looks exactly the same. This property is often abused by writers who want to make you believe that now is the time when everything changes – although in fairness, they often deceive themselves. If you don't believe me, look at plots [1] and [2]. In both cases it looks like the past was flat and the "knee" of the curve is right in front of you, promising an exciting future! [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+-3+to+3 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+... [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+7+to+13 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+...
- loopz 6y ago
  Relative to an absolute viewpoint and habitat, there is a runaway though. Beings are not relativistic. Update: I guess this is a tangent on a tangent, pun intended.
  - adwn 6y ago
    > Relative to an absolute viewpoint [...] Any yet this "absolute" viewpoint is never really absolute, but always relative to the authors current position in time – as if by coincidence. EDIT: To clarify, when an author uses an exponential curve to make the "runaway" argument, they almost never justify why the current absolute value of the curve should have special significance over the absolute values at other points in time. For example, in forgotmypw17's original post, there's no explanation why the current status of free software is at a special threshold – or what "exponential curve" they're even talking about.
    - loopz 6y ago
      If your cellar is filling up with water exponentially, the last half could fill up in the last timeperiod. In a limited world, exponential changes are sometimes catastrophic.
  - 6y ago
fsflover 6y ago
> I think the term "public" is more understandable by a non-technical person, and I may adopt using it after some consideration. https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu

jariel 6y ago

I think you're maybe confusing 'Free Software' in the FSF sense, and just 'free' or 'open' software in the broadest sense. Open/Free/Public software is obviously very useful. But it's the 'copyleft' stuff that I think the author is taking umbrage with. It's arguably we don't really need copyleft to do any of the things you indicate as being important.

jordigh 6y ago
The FSF has never said that free software must be copylefted. The article itself says that De Icaza and Stallman agreed that open source and free software are the same set of software and the only difference is the intent of the person who is going to use that software.
- enriquto 6y ago
  Jordi, by attacking RMS at this very moment you are joining people such as the author of this article, Microsoft and Google who want to destroy Free Software and Open Source alike. You are right on your views about leadership, but in practice you are acting as an enemy agent destroying free software from within. This is very saddening and embarrassing.
  - jordigh 6y ago
    RMS is not free software, and it's very distressing that people think he is. This is a cult of personality.
    - rjzzleep 6y ago
      No it's not, most people DON'T like his personality. It's the exact opposite. He's tolerated because of his views and actions on free software.
      - jordigh 6y ago
        "Cult of personality" doesn't literally mean someone's personality. It means making a cult out of a person. The way people are saying that attack rms is attacking free software itself is very much a cult of personality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality rms is not free software. The 2000 signatories of the letter are free software. We are a community much larger than a single man. Seeing the signatories of that letter is like seeing all of my old friends. I know that guy from debconf and that one from pycon and oh yeah we used to hang out in that irc channel man remember when we worked together on that bug.
        rjzzleep 6y ago
        People are attacking the FSF BECAUSE of stallman. YOU and your lot are the people that are making him a cult of personality. Again, he is a quirky old man who is in that position, because of his contributions and his views. I sat next to him and I never particularly liked him. But this is the same shit that you people did when you destroyed Mozilla to make an example out of Brendan Eich only to get him replaced with the Chief of Marketing and then wondering why Mozilla's direction is weird. You don't get to turn this into a cult of personality yourself, then attack it and then blame the other side for it. Your logic here is nothing short of insane. I don't see you calling for the tearing down of founding fathers statues and the US constitutions. All but 3 of them were slave owners, so probably have a bunch of cruelties they did while they were alive.
- wrycoder 6y ago
  The difference is the intent of the person who RELEASES the software. Free software under the GPL is deliberately restrictive. Put briefly, it’s designed to prevent someone from taking your software and releasing it under a license more restrictive than the GPL itself. It enforces the right to run the software, study it, distribute changed versions, and benefit from other people’s changes. With “open source”, meaning something like the MIT license, anyone can take the software you wrote, change it to add features, wrap it up in a fancy package, and sell it without source code access. You wouldn’t be able to even run the new version without buying a copy. Stallman has been explaining this for nearly forty years. He even wrote a book about it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s...

adwn 6y ago

> In fact, I think we're approaching the "runaway" part of an exponential curve. Tangential nitpick: There's no "runaway" part of an exponential curve. At every point along the x-axis (typically time), the curve looks exactly the same. This property is often abused by writers who want to make you believe that now is the time when everything changes – although in fairness, they often deceive themselves. If you don't believe me, look at plots [1] and [2]. In both cases it looks like the past was flat and the "knee" of the curve is right in front of you, promising an exciting future! [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+-3+to+3 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+... [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+7+to+13 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+exp%28x%29+x+%3D+...

loopz 6y ago
Relative to an absolute viewpoint and habitat, there is a runaway though. Beings are not relativistic. Update: I guess this is a tangent on a tangent, pun intended.
- adwn 6y ago
  > Relative to an absolute viewpoint [...] Any yet this "absolute" viewpoint is never really absolute, but always relative to the authors current position in time – as if by coincidence. EDIT: To clarify, when an author uses an exponential curve to make the "runaway" argument, they almost never justify why the current absolute value of the curve should have special significance over the absolute values at other points in time. For example, in forgotmypw17's original post, there's no explanation why the current status of free software is at a special threshold – or what "exponential curve" they're even talking about.
  - loopz 6y ago
    If your cellar is filling up with water exponentially, the last half could fill up in the last timeperiod. In a limited world, exponential changes are sometimes catastrophic.
- 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago

> I think the term "public" is more understandable by a non-technical person, and I may adopt using it after some consideration. https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu