8 ms·

I think the FSF is starting to realize that Stallman is not forever, and FSF ethics aren't forever. Having the FSF have exclusive rights to change license terms

I think the FSF is starting to realize that Stallman is not forever, and FSF ethics aren't forever. Having the FSF have exclusive rights to change license terms with "or newer" terms and to hold copyrights to projects is a bad idea as the founders of the FSF are getting older. I trust the FSF, but I have no idea who the FSF will be in another 20 years.

pjmlp 5y ago
Actually everything GNU and Linux related. I am quite certain that when the generations that made this happen are gone, computer world will be back at business as usual like it was in the shareware days.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- anthk 5y ago
  Shareware days are dead. Also, there are diehard Libre GNU/Linux out there beside Stallman behind several projects.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    > Shareware days are dead. They aren't. Google's play store and Apple's app store are examples of thriving shareware platforms.
    - anthk 5y ago
      No, today's trends are the subscriptions. Far worse. Kinda like mainframes, but with a flat rate. Also, there is almost no shareware.
      - enriquto 5y ago
        > there is almost no shareware. According to the definition [0] of shareware: Shareware is a type of proprietary software which is initially shared by the owner for trial use at little or no cost with usually limited functionality or incomplete documentation but which can be upgraded upon payment. This includes subscriptions and in-app purchases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
        anthk 5y ago
        I lived thru that, thanks. Subscriptions are a different issue than paying for the full/complete version.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    It is called SaaS and digital stores nowadays.
    - anthk 5y ago
      Subscriptions. Even worse.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Doubt it. So many projects these days are made up of multiple corporations and community contributions that I believe open source has basically won out it a lot of places. Things might not be libre like Stallman wanted but open source is here to stay.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Try to get the source code of Android for your own device, most SaaS applications or most embedded appliances.
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      Yet most of these run on open source code. That there are thousands of independent actors exploiting, and developing, these tools is one of the reasons open source has been so successful.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Open source has existed since forever on tapes and cards exchanged between university students, programming listings on computer clubs magazines for home microcomputers, source code delivered on the professional version of development tools,... Nothing new really, unless you want to be pendantic on the real meaning of "open source" as defined by Open Source Initiative. At the end of the day it won't matter, because those developers have bills to pay so eventually idealism gets replaced with real life.
ghaff 5y ago
"Or newer" terms seem like a not so great idea generally. They seem to presuppose wise benevolence on the part of whoever controls the license.
- Gaelan 5y ago
  For what its worth, the GPL (both 2 and 3) says this: > The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. (The GPLv3 goes on to support some stuff about naming a "proxy" to approve new versions in addition to the FSF.) I'm no lawyer, but I imagine that would prevent glaringly-evil GPLv4 from being upgradable-to.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Calling v3 "similar in spirit" seems like a stretch. I suppose that's literally true, but what they changed was significant enough that it drove a lot of projects away.
    - Gaelan 5y ago
      Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.
      - mhitza 5y ago
        That comparison makes no sense to me. I found one person making this claim on Twitter and Gentoo bug tracker (plus a couple posts in different languages reciting his quoted claim). The part about being able to link AGPLv3 code, I'm not sure what is supposed to emphasis. Care to expand?
codewiz 5y ago
This decision came from the GCC Steering Committee, which has nothing to do with the FSF. The history of GCC includes a dark period in which version control wasn't public, and the project was dumping release tarballs on the GNU ftp server. Then, Cygnus Solutions started the Experimental GNU Compiler Suite (EGCS), a fork with a much more open development model, capable of attracting contributions from the whole Linux and embedded industry. Within a few years, many Linux distros had switched to EGCS, including Red Hat. If I remember correctly, talks of reconciliation started after Red Hat acquired Cygnus: other distros were worried that their competitor had gained too much control over a critical component of the OS. Eventually, the GNU developers and the EGCS contributors agreed to merge back under the GNU flag, but keeping EGCS's open development model. Nowadays, the GCC project is still hosted on the Red Hat-owned Sourceware servers, and its governance body is a technical board of contributors with various industry affiliations: https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html TL;DR: the FSF and the GNU project no longer have much influence on GCC's direction.
- not2b 5y ago
  Not that simple: EGCS was deliberately structured so that Cygnus would not control it; it involved many GCC developers who didn't work for them. The original EGCS steering committee had a non-Cygnus majority. From the very beginning, it was structured in such a way that it could become the official GCC once reality set in. This had nothing to do with Cygnus being acquired. There wasn't a working Linux libstdc++ from the FSF that anyone could build until EGCS fixed it; no Linux distros that supported C++ ever used an FSF version. They had to use weird hacks built by HJ Lu.
  - sitkack 5y ago
    I have vague memories of this time period. It seemed like GCC had stagnated and development wasn't being done in public. Many of the same gripes about extensibility and velocity that spawned the creation of clang/llvm. please no license fights.
    - not2b 5y ago
snotrockets 5y ago
I don’t trust the FSF anymore, and I think that’s the reason gcc won’t require copyright assignment: they too realize FSF is now tightly coupled to enabling abusive behavior
krapp 5y ago
>I trust the FSF, but I have no idea who the FSF will be in another 20 years. The FSF has proven itself to be a cult incapable of moving on from or existing without RMS, so the simple fact is that, like all cults, it will die when he does. Luckily, the FSF does not embody Free Software, and the greater movement doesn't need either to survive.
CRConrad 5y ago
The whole idea of a foundation is that it shouldn't matter that the founders age and pass away, isn't it? And "who the FSF will be in another 20 years" is down to its statutes. Presumably the board has a duty to follow those, including (s)electing successors for themselves who also will do so.

pjmlp 5y ago

Actually everything GNU and Linux related. I am quite certain that when the generations that made this happen are gone, computer world will be back at business as usual like it was in the shareware days.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anthk 5y ago
Shareware days are dead. Also, there are diehard Libre GNU/Linux out there beside Stallman behind several projects.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > Shareware days are dead. They aren't. Google's play store and Apple's app store are examples of thriving shareware platforms.
  - anthk 5y ago
    No, today's trends are the subscriptions. Far worse. Kinda like mainframes, but with a flat rate. Also, there is almost no shareware.
    - enriquto 5y ago
      > there is almost no shareware. According to the definition [0] of shareware: Shareware is a type of proprietary software which is initially shared by the owner for trial use at little or no cost with usually limited functionality or incomplete documentation but which can be upgraded upon payment. This includes subscriptions and in-app purchases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
      - anthk 5y ago
        I lived thru that, thanks. Subscriptions are a different issue than paying for the full/complete version.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  It is called SaaS and digital stores nowadays.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Subscriptions. Even worse.
edgyquant 5y ago
Doubt it. So many projects these days are made up of multiple corporations and community contributions that I believe open source has basically won out it a lot of places. Things might not be libre like Stallman wanted but open source is here to stay.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Try to get the source code of Android for your own device, most SaaS applications or most embedded appliances.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    Yet most of these run on open source code. That there are thousands of independent actors exploiting, and developing, these tools is one of the reasons open source has been so successful.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Open source has existed since forever on tapes and cards exchanged between university students, programming listings on computer clubs magazines for home microcomputers, source code delivered on the professional version of development tools,... Nothing new really, unless you want to be pendantic on the real meaning of "open source" as defined by Open Source Initiative. At the end of the day it won't matter, because those developers have bills to pay so eventually idealism gets replaced with real life.

ghaff 5y ago

"Or newer" terms seem like a not so great idea generally. They seem to presuppose wise benevolence on the part of whoever controls the license.

Gaelan 5y ago
For what its worth, the GPL (both 2 and 3) says this: > The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. (The GPLv3 goes on to support some stuff about naming a "proxy" to approve new versions in addition to the FSF.) I'm no lawyer, but I imagine that would prevent glaringly-evil GPLv4 from being upgradable-to.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Calling v3 "similar in spirit" seems like a stretch. I suppose that's literally true, but what they changed was significant enough that it drove a lot of projects away.
  - Gaelan 5y ago
    Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.
    - mhitza 5y ago
      That comparison makes no sense to me. I found one person making this claim on Twitter and Gentoo bug tracker (plus a couple posts in different languages reciting his quoted claim). The part about being able to link AGPLv3 code, I'm not sure what is supposed to emphasis. Care to expand?

codewiz 5y ago

This decision came from the GCC Steering Committee, which has nothing to do with the FSF. The history of GCC includes a dark period in which version control wasn't public, and the project was dumping release tarballs on the GNU ftp server. Then, Cygnus Solutions started the Experimental GNU Compiler Suite (EGCS), a fork with a much more open development model, capable of attracting contributions from the whole Linux and embedded industry. Within a few years, many Linux distros had switched to EGCS, including Red Hat. If I remember correctly, talks of reconciliation started after Red Hat acquired Cygnus: other distros were worried that their competitor had gained too much control over a critical component of the OS. Eventually, the GNU developers and the EGCS contributors agreed to merge back under the GNU flag, but keeping EGCS's open development model. Nowadays, the GCC project is still hosted on the Red Hat-owned Sourceware servers, and its governance body is a technical board of contributors with various industry affiliations: https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html TL;DR: the FSF and the GNU project no longer have much influence on GCC's direction.

not2b 5y ago
Not that simple: EGCS was deliberately structured so that Cygnus would not control it; it involved many GCC developers who didn't work for them. The original EGCS steering committee had a non-Cygnus majority. From the very beginning, it was structured in such a way that it could become the official GCC once reality set in. This had nothing to do with Cygnus being acquired. There wasn't a working Linux libstdc++ from the FSF that anyone could build until EGCS fixed it; no Linux distros that supported C++ ever used an FSF version. They had to use weird hacks built by HJ Lu.
- sitkack 5y ago
  I have vague memories of this time period. It seemed like GCC had stagnated and development wasn't being done in public. Many of the same gripes about extensibility and velocity that spawned the creation of clang/llvm. please no license fights.
  - not2b 5y ago

snotrockets 5y ago

I don’t trust the FSF anymore, and I think that’s the reason gcc won’t require copyright assignment: they too realize FSF is now tightly coupled to enabling abusive behavior

krapp 5y ago

>I trust the FSF, but I have no idea who the FSF will be in another 20 years. The FSF has proven itself to be a cult incapable of moving on from or existing without RMS, so the simple fact is that, like all cults, it will die when he does. Luckily, the FSF does not embody Free Software, and the greater movement doesn't need either to survive.

CRConrad 5y ago

The whole idea of a foundation is that it shouldn't matter that the founders age and pass away, isn't it? And "who the FSF will be in another 20 years" is down to its statutes. Presumably the board has a duty to follow those, including (s)electing successors for themselves who also will do so.