6 ms·

On the other hand, isn't it nice to have a funding model that allows developers of open source software to be sustainably salaried?

dTal 6y ago
Not at the expense of what it stands for, no.
- markn951 6y ago
  Religious zealotry is not realistic nor is it useful.
  - dTal 6y ago
    You call it religious zealotry, I call it "having principles" and I do find it useful.
  - ratww 6y ago
    One of the takedown emails to a Github repository owner says "who will cooperate with github.com and Chinese government to physically find you and stop the illegal use of licensed content". I think any reasonable person would find this unethical mafia-like behaviour.
  - smolder 6y ago
    This seems misdirected to me. Not all principled stances can be fairly compared to religious zealotry. Standing up for the rights of users strikes me as pretty useful.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Thankfully, this is a practical concern, not religious zealotry.
- btown 6y ago
  One of the comments by a MuseScore developer in that thread is much more nuanced: https://github.com/Xmader/musescore-downloader/issues/5#issuecomment-644107739 https://github.com/Xmader/musescore-downloader/issues/5#issu... Essentially it boils down to this: if you see value to society in allowing people to share musical scores with each other, that's fundamentally at odds with a libre software philosophy. Because if you let people share music on a platform, they will inevitably share copyrighted melodies, which means not only that you are forced to monetize to be able to strike licensing arrangements, or else be sued into oblivion. And you are also required to enforce that the sharing software be used as intended in order to placate rightsholders, or else be sued into oblivion. And it's that "as intended" that is fundamentally different from how many of us think about FOSS. There's a lot of corporate speak in the official post here related to the emplacement of score downloads behind the paywall in the first place https://musescore.com/groups/improving-musescore-com/discuss/5044610 https://musescore.com/groups/improving-musescore-com/discuss... but it's the same sentiment: if MuseScore.com doesn't put in place paywalls for downloads and enforce them, they will lose their ability to negotiate with major music publishers, and they see that outcome being a net loss to society of access to digital scores. Frankly, I think this is a reasonable tradeoff. MuseScore sees monetization and adherence to these restrictions as a necessary step to ensure they have the resources and community to promote music literacy. That's a distinct mission from, say, GNU's mission, and just as valid. And of all the corporations using GPL for visions distinct from GNU's vision (here's looking at you, AWS), this one at least has a reason beyond being a naked cash grab.
  - ratww 6y ago
    No, it's not nuanced. The discussion stops being nuanced as soon as the company starts the discussion with a threat such as "will cooperate with github.com and Chinese government to physically find you and stop the illegal use of licensed content". At the point the email in the Github issue was written the API was public. It was removed after the repository owner responded, as can be seen on the Internet Archive. Nothing ever justifies offering a public API and getting people to use it, to only later backtrack, accuse users of "stealing" and threaten developers with use of physical force. If the problem is caused by major industries, then just remove the previously public API and don't send mafia-like threats.
- simondotau 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean by that? Then more broadly, can you explain how the creation of more GPL-licensed source code can ever be a bad thing?
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    An extreme example since you asked a very absolute question: I sell software to the Chinese government to track down dissidents and kill them with drones. I release a lot of code under a GPL license and use the funds to promote OSS software. Most people wouldn't consider this a positive for the world even though more GPL software is created. Or in other words many people do not believe that "the ends justify the means" is a valid reason for something.
    - simondotau 6y ago
      You described multiple distinct events. The killing of people was the bad thing. The releasing of code under the GPL is at most a neutral thing.
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        They are not distinct, stopping the former would also stop the latter, as such they are linked.
        simondotau 6y ago
        Using the same logic, you can come to the opposite conclusion. They are distinct, stopping the latter would not stop the former, as such they are not linked. Let me try saying this another way. Tell your story again but where the decision to be involved in open source software was not made. Was the sum total of badness injected into this world quantifiably less?

dTal 6y ago

Not at the expense of what it stands for, no.

markn951 6y ago
Religious zealotry is not realistic nor is it useful.
- dTal 6y ago
  You call it religious zealotry, I call it "having principles" and I do find it useful.
- ratww 6y ago
  One of the takedown emails to a Github repository owner says "who will cooperate with github.com and Chinese government to physically find you and stop the illegal use of licensed content". I think any reasonable person would find this unethical mafia-like behaviour.
- smolder 6y ago
  This seems misdirected to me. Not all principled stances can be fairly compared to religious zealotry. Standing up for the rights of users strikes me as pretty useful.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Thankfully, this is a practical concern, not religious zealotry.
btown 6y ago
One of the comments by a MuseScore developer in that thread is much more nuanced: https://github.com/Xmader/musescore-downloader/issues/5#issuecomment-644107739 https://github.com/Xmader/musescore-downloader/issues/5#issu... Essentially it boils down to this: if you see value to society in allowing people to share musical scores with each other, that's fundamentally at odds with a libre software philosophy. Because if you let people share music on a platform, they will inevitably share copyrighted melodies, which means not only that you are forced to monetize to be able to strike licensing arrangements, or else be sued into oblivion. And you are also required to enforce that the sharing software be used as intended in order to placate rightsholders, or else be sued into oblivion. And it's that "as intended" that is fundamentally different from how many of us think about FOSS. There's a lot of corporate speak in the official post here related to the emplacement of score downloads behind the paywall in the first place https://musescore.com/groups/improving-musescore-com/discuss/5044610 https://musescore.com/groups/improving-musescore-com/discuss... but it's the same sentiment: if MuseScore.com doesn't put in place paywalls for downloads and enforce them, they will lose their ability to negotiate with major music publishers, and they see that outcome being a net loss to society of access to digital scores. Frankly, I think this is a reasonable tradeoff. MuseScore sees monetization and adherence to these restrictions as a necessary step to ensure they have the resources and community to promote music literacy. That's a distinct mission from, say, GNU's mission, and just as valid. And of all the corporations using GPL for visions distinct from GNU's vision (here's looking at you, AWS), this one at least has a reason beyond being a naked cash grab.
- ratww 6y ago
  No, it's not nuanced. The discussion stops being nuanced as soon as the company starts the discussion with a threat such as "will cooperate with github.com and Chinese government to physically find you and stop the illegal use of licensed content". At the point the email in the Github issue was written the API was public. It was removed after the repository owner responded, as can be seen on the Internet Archive. Nothing ever justifies offering a public API and getting people to use it, to only later backtrack, accuse users of "stealing" and threaten developers with use of physical force. If the problem is caused by major industries, then just remove the previously public API and don't send mafia-like threats.
simondotau 6y ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean by that? Then more broadly, can you explain how the creation of more GPL-licensed source code can ever be a bad thing?
- marcinzm 6y ago
  An extreme example since you asked a very absolute question: I sell software to the Chinese government to track down dissidents and kill them with drones. I release a lot of code under a GPL license and use the funds to promote OSS software. Most people wouldn't consider this a positive for the world even though more GPL software is created. Or in other words many people do not believe that "the ends justify the means" is a valid reason for something.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    You described multiple distinct events. The killing of people was the bad thing. The releasing of code under the GPL is at most a neutral thing.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      They are not distinct, stopping the former would also stop the latter, as such they are linked.
      - simondotau 6y ago
        Using the same logic, you can come to the opposite conclusion. They are distinct, stopping the latter would not stop the former, as such they are not linked. Let me try saying this another way. Tell your story again but where the decision to be involved in open source software was not made. Was the sum total of badness injected into this world quantifiably less?