3 ms·

You need to address the author’s points though: if you agree that spyware is a problem that impinges on user freedom, what agenda should we advance to solve it?

You need to address the author’s points though: if you agree that spyware is a problem that impinges on user freedom, what agenda should we advance to solve it? is advocating for copyleft licensing actually helping? Do you really believe that a world where everyone only used GPL software would be free of spyware?

fsflover 6y ago
> Do you really believe that a world where everyone only used GPL software would be free of spyware? There is no need to believe. Just have a look at F-Droid and GNU/Linux repositories.
- jameshart 6y ago
  That Linux doesn’t itself contain any spyware doesn’t tell me how, in a world where everyone runs Linux, magically spyware would disappear. Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. So we have broad adoption of GPL software. Spyware is still happening. What’s the next step?
  - User23 6y ago
    Don’t straw man. The comment you’re replying to is referring to using free software exclusively. If you avoid all non-free software, including services that don’t share their source code, then you will not have to deal with any adware or spyware at all if you don’t wish to. You’re really just supporting the FSF’s arguments against non-free software.
    - yunohn 6y ago
      Who will fund this entirely free stack you are talking about?
    - jameshart 6y ago
      But plot that path out for me. Explain to me how you make a world where the average consumer has access to a spyware free phone and TV because of free software. What societal or legislative or cultural levers do you plan to pull to bring about that utopia? Is the FSF pulling them?
  - sildur 6y ago
    No magic is needed. In a world where everything is free software, almost no spyware would happen. And the "almost" is because nobody can watch everything every time. But the most used software will be thoroughly reviewed.
    - jameshart 6y ago
      But we don’t live in that world yet. We live in a world where, on the contrary, companies are able to make products that distribute their spyware and do so by actively exploiting the contributions of free software developers! The Linux devs whose contributions are in android are having their software used to build TVs that spy on people! Is free software advocacy alone actually helping advance a spyware-free world, then?
      - fsflover 6y ago
        No, the eventual goal of the FSF (and Stallman himself) is to make all software free. You cannot achieve this goal at once, you need to make part of the software free first.
  - crazypython 6y ago
    > Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. Android is built on GPLv2 Linux. GPLv2 does not protect the user against locked down hardware and firmware. In contrast, GPLv3+ does protect the user. The user does not have the freedom to modify their software on their hardware, so there is much less freedom.
  - scoutt 6y ago
    To be pedantic, Android is under Apache[1] license, not GPL. And the apps you install in Android are (and can be) closed source (most of them). The hypothetical scenario you describe is the one where you build Linux from scratch and you find a spyware. And this, AFAIK, is not happening right now, and one of the reasons is because it's open source and you can build it from the source code. [1]: https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses
    - jameshart 6y ago
      Android incorporates a patched GPLv2 Linux kernel, and a stack of other stuff on top of it which includes GPL, LGPL and Apache and other licenses. And a typical android distribution - eg the one installed on a TV - includes a bunch of other software too. And the hypothetical scenario I want is where I buy a TV and it doesn’t contain spyware. It seems that the existence of Linux has, if anything, made that less possible, given that any old hardware company can grab a Linux kernel and shove whatever spyware they want on top of it before selling it to me.
      - EdwardDiego 6y ago
        ...if the Linux kernel was under GPLv3 though, that wouldn't be as easy for them. I haven't quite grokked why Linus decided GPLv3 was bad, but he strikes me as a pragmatist vs. the FSF idealists.
        pieter_mj 6y ago
        As far as I understood (maybe it was/is on groklaw.net somewhere), Linus didn't care as much about the users. His main concern is the developers, so he doesn't mind the users being tivoized out of their ability to run adapted code.
        GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        Not so long ago GPLv2 was anathema for corporations, but now they love it due to linux. What's left now is to gradually roll out GPLv3. It's embrace and extend tactics of sorts.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    You can't lump all GPL licenced software into one bucket. GPL <=2 is quite different to GPL 3. Which is why GPL 3 is anathema to many commercial companies. I can pretty much guarantee that none of those "smart" TVs are running GPLv3 code. Hehe, and then there's the Affero licence... https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
- Aldo_MX 6y ago
  I don't get your point, but I'm pretty sure that several GNU/Linux repos contain the version of Unity that pinged Amazon's servers to name an example. Where do you draw the line between spyware and legitimate feature? Where do you draw the line between malware and unintentional faulty code? Review time is a scarce resource, and a bad actor will always find a way to bypass automated checks.
  - laurent92 6y ago
    We should really pay for open-source. The FSF has a page saying it’s correct to charge before delivering OSS software (and the user can redistribute the software with OSS license). We could charge access to Debian repositories for example. For example one repo could have bugfixes, and the broader audience could have a 1-year-old repo. Sure your can build from source, get a zip from a torrent, or find someone who hosts a free mirror of the paid repo, but as a company it’s much easier to get it from the official source, for security compliance. (Btw I’ve always said I’d be happy to spend $200 per year per employee for a desktop OS of macOS quality, so probably much less for our servers). This would offer price discrimination: - Free for individuals who want to spin off a small website, - Paid when you need to prove compliance to security regulations, - Developments still go to the pool of mankind’s marvels, instead of being locked with a commercial license and dying with the company, - Customer can still fork or fix a bug themselves by building from source.
    - Aldo_MX 6y ago
      I agree with your point that we should look for a way to pay FOSS maintainers for their time, but my point was that Linux repos are not free of spyware naming the version of Unity that sent what you typed to Amazon Shopping as an example. The line that separates legitimate features and spyware is blurry, especially when a bad default ends up leaking information of the user.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Customization is what GPL ensures. You install and run reviewed code.
  - 6y ago
- slightwinder 6y ago
  Those repositories are used by a very small minority of users, which are also highly competent and constantly looking out for scatchy things. Yet, those scatchy things do happen occasionally on small scale be. But it's kinda obvious that the lack ob a big and serious actor is the main reason why nothing seriously bad ever happend in linux-land so far. Everyone switching to Open Source would change this and the watchmen would likely be unable to protect their world. I mean just look at the mildly bad things happening on mainstream-systems, which everyone knows about and still ignores them, because "that's just how it is". At the end people willingly use bad software & services, because their subjective gain is higher than the small price they pay.
boudin 6y ago
It doesn't systematically free people of spywares but allows to do so. Projects already get forked for that purpose like vscode, chromium. It also allows to audit and at least see what a software does.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  vscodium

fsflover 6y ago

> Do you really believe that a world where everyone only used GPL software would be free of spyware? There is no need to believe. Just have a look at F-Droid and GNU/Linux repositories.

jameshart 6y ago
That Linux doesn’t itself contain any spyware doesn’t tell me how, in a world where everyone runs Linux, magically spyware would disappear. Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. So we have broad adoption of GPL software. Spyware is still happening. What’s the next step?
- User23 6y ago
  Don’t straw man. The comment you’re replying to is referring to using free software exclusively. If you avoid all non-free software, including services that don’t share their source code, then you will not have to deal with any adware or spyware at all if you don’t wish to. You’re really just supporting the FSF’s arguments against non-free software.
  - yunohn 6y ago
    Who will fund this entirely free stack you are talking about?
  - jameshart 6y ago
    But plot that path out for me. Explain to me how you make a world where the average consumer has access to a spyware free phone and TV because of free software. What societal or legislative or cultural levers do you plan to pull to bring about that utopia? Is the FSF pulling them?
- sildur 6y ago
  No magic is needed. In a world where everything is free software, almost no spyware would happen. And the "almost" is because nobody can watch everything every time. But the most used software will be thoroughly reviewed.
  - jameshart 6y ago
    But we don’t live in that world yet. We live in a world where, on the contrary, companies are able to make products that distribute their spyware and do so by actively exploiting the contributions of free software developers! The Linux devs whose contributions are in android are having their software used to build TVs that spy on people! Is free software advocacy alone actually helping advance a spyware-free world, then?
    - fsflover 6y ago
      No, the eventual goal of the FSF (and Stallman himself) is to make all software free. You cannot achieve this goal at once, you need to make part of the software free first.
- crazypython 6y ago
  > Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. Android is built on GPLv2 Linux. GPLv2 does not protect the user against locked down hardware and firmware. In contrast, GPLv3+ does protect the user. The user does not have the freedom to modify their software on their hardware, so there is much less freedom.
- scoutt 6y ago
  To be pedantic, Android is under Apache[1] license, not GPL. And the apps you install in Android are (and can be) closed source (most of them). The hypothetical scenario you describe is the one where you build Linux from scratch and you find a spyware. And this, AFAIK, is not happening right now, and one of the reasons is because it's open source and you can build it from the source code. [1]: https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses
  - jameshart 6y ago
    Android incorporates a patched GPLv2 Linux kernel, and a stack of other stuff on top of it which includes GPL, LGPL and Apache and other licenses. And a typical android distribution - eg the one installed on a TV - includes a bunch of other software too. And the hypothetical scenario I want is where I buy a TV and it doesn’t contain spyware. It seems that the existence of Linux has, if anything, made that less possible, given that any old hardware company can grab a Linux kernel and shove whatever spyware they want on top of it before selling it to me.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      ...if the Linux kernel was under GPLv3 though, that wouldn't be as easy for them. I haven't quite grokked why Linus decided GPLv3 was bad, but he strikes me as a pragmatist vs. the FSF idealists.
      - pieter_mj 6y ago
        As far as I understood (maybe it was/is on groklaw.net somewhere), Linus didn't care as much about the users. His main concern is the developers, so he doesn't mind the users being tivoized out of their ability to run adapted code.
        GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        Not so long ago GPLv2 was anathema for corporations, but now they love it due to linux. What's left now is to gradually roll out GPLv3. It's embrace and extend tactics of sorts.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  You can't lump all GPL licenced software into one bucket. GPL <=2 is quite different to GPL 3. Which is why GPL 3 is anathema to many commercial companies. I can pretty much guarantee that none of those "smart" TVs are running GPLv3 code. Hehe, and then there's the Affero licence... https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
Aldo_MX 6y ago
I don't get your point, but I'm pretty sure that several GNU/Linux repos contain the version of Unity that pinged Amazon's servers to name an example. Where do you draw the line between spyware and legitimate feature? Where do you draw the line between malware and unintentional faulty code? Review time is a scarce resource, and a bad actor will always find a way to bypass automated checks.
- laurent92 6y ago
  We should really pay for open-source. The FSF has a page saying it’s correct to charge before delivering OSS software (and the user can redistribute the software with OSS license). We could charge access to Debian repositories for example. For example one repo could have bugfixes, and the broader audience could have a 1-year-old repo. Sure your can build from source, get a zip from a torrent, or find someone who hosts a free mirror of the paid repo, but as a company it’s much easier to get it from the official source, for security compliance. (Btw I’ve always said I’d be happy to spend $200 per year per employee for a desktop OS of macOS quality, so probably much less for our servers). This would offer price discrimination: - Free for individuals who want to spin off a small website, - Paid when you need to prove compliance to security regulations, - Developments still go to the pool of mankind’s marvels, instead of being locked with a commercial license and dying with the company, - Customer can still fork or fix a bug themselves by building from source.
  - Aldo_MX 6y ago
    I agree with your point that we should look for a way to pay FOSS maintainers for their time, but my point was that Linux repos are not free of spyware naming the version of Unity that sent what you typed to Amazon Shopping as an example. The line that separates legitimate features and spyware is blurry, especially when a bad default ends up leaking information of the user.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Customization is what GPL ensures. You install and run reviewed code.
- 6y ago
slightwinder 6y ago
Those repositories are used by a very small minority of users, which are also highly competent and constantly looking out for scatchy things. Yet, those scatchy things do happen occasionally on small scale be. But it's kinda obvious that the lack ob a big and serious actor is the main reason why nothing seriously bad ever happend in linux-land so far. Everyone switching to Open Source would change this and the watchmen would likely be unable to protect their world. I mean just look at the mildly bad things happening on mainstream-systems, which everyone knows about and still ignores them, because "that's just how it is". At the end people willingly use bad software & services, because their subjective gain is higher than the small price they pay.

boudin 6y ago

It doesn't systematically free people of spywares but allows to do so. Projects already get forked for that purpose like vscode, chromium. It also allows to audit and at least see what a software does.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
vscodium