3 ms·

You believe in freedom for who, exactly? Freedom for the users of software? Or freedom for corporations who benefit from denying access to the source code of th

You believe in freedom for who, exactly? Freedom for the users of software? Or freedom for corporations who benefit from denying access to the source code of that software? The Free Software Foundation exists to protect the former at the expense of the latter.

sneak 5y ago
You are dragging anti-corporate ideology into a very simple matter. Corporations are sometimes users, and individual people often benefit from denying access to the source code of software that is used to provide a service. Providing a service is fundamentally different from providing software.
- LambdaComplex 5y ago
  > individual people often benefit from denying access to the source code of software that is used to provide a service To the detriment of the users of that service--which are the people that the FSF aims to protect.
  - sneak 5y ago
    That's a very simplistic and, I think inaccurate view of the matter. My customers, for example, to whom I provide service, are not infringed upon in any way because I use private forks of GPL software in the provision of my services.
    - LambdaComplex 5y ago
      > My customers, for example, to whom I provide service, are not infringed upon in any way The issue is that I—and, more importantly, your customers—must simply take your word for it, since we're unable to confirm or deny it for ourselves if you don't make the source available. When dealing with large corporations, taking such statements at face value is pretty foolish.
      - throwaway2037 5y ago
        This is an interesting point. The original question was what if my database was AGPL, and it's source code was modified. If this database was used as part of a public (cloud-based) web-app, how could end users ever know there is a custom database? You are right: It seems likely that less ethical orgs would just lie and say they use the database unmodified. Thus avoiding the obligation to publish their database modifications as required by AGPL.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      They will be when you go out of business and disappear, and they can't compile that same service to run on their own replacement server because you've withheld the source to your modification. You might not want to admit to yourself that your business model is based on infringing on the freedoms of these users of GPL software, but that's exactly what it is.
- lmm 5y ago
  There's nothing anti-corporate about it. The AGPL is motivated by the same thing that motivated the original GPL: making sure that users have access to fix bugs in the software they're using, like in the printer driver anecdote. The AGPL doesn't require you to provide the source for software that you're using to provide a service - only the source for software where the software is the service. A bug in software I use is equally annoying when I'm using that software over a network connection as it is when I'm using it on my local machine.
rocqua 5y ago
What about freedom for developers? It seems to me that, to defend users against corporations, the FSF as a side effect is attempting to take a whole lot of freedom away from developers who share the ideals of the FSF. (That is, any developers who publish under MIT / BSD like licenses)

sneak 5y ago

You are dragging anti-corporate ideology into a very simple matter. Corporations are sometimes users, and individual people often benefit from denying access to the source code of software that is used to provide a service. Providing a service is fundamentally different from providing software.

LambdaComplex 5y ago
> individual people often benefit from denying access to the source code of software that is used to provide a service To the detriment of the users of that service--which are the people that the FSF aims to protect.
- sneak 5y ago
  That's a very simplistic and, I think inaccurate view of the matter. My customers, for example, to whom I provide service, are not infringed upon in any way because I use private forks of GPL software in the provision of my services.
  - LambdaComplex 5y ago
    > My customers, for example, to whom I provide service, are not infringed upon in any way The issue is that I—and, more importantly, your customers—must simply take your word for it, since we're unable to confirm or deny it for ourselves if you don't make the source available. When dealing with large corporations, taking such statements at face value is pretty foolish.
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      This is an interesting point. The original question was what if my database was AGPL, and it's source code was modified. If this database was used as part of a public (cloud-based) web-app, how could end users ever know there is a custom database? You are right: It seems likely that less ethical orgs would just lie and say they use the database unmodified. Thus avoiding the obligation to publish their database modifications as required by AGPL.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    They will be when you go out of business and disappear, and they can't compile that same service to run on their own replacement server because you've withheld the source to your modification. You might not want to admit to yourself that your business model is based on infringing on the freedoms of these users of GPL software, but that's exactly what it is.
lmm 5y ago
There's nothing anti-corporate about it. The AGPL is motivated by the same thing that motivated the original GPL: making sure that users have access to fix bugs in the software they're using, like in the printer driver anecdote. The AGPL doesn't require you to provide the source for software that you're using to provide a service - only the source for software where the software is the service. A bug in software I use is equally annoying when I'm using that software over a network connection as it is when I'm using it on my local machine.

rocqua 5y ago

What about freedom for developers? It seems to me that, to defend users against corporations, the FSF as a side effect is attempting to take a whole lot of freedom away from developers who share the ideals of the FSF. (That is, any developers who publish under MIT / BSD like licenses)