3 ms·

> Something like "public source", i.e. source available but not free to use under any condition may be an answer in some cases. What would be the purpose of th

> Something like "public source", i.e. source available but not free to use under any condition may be an answer in some cases. What would be the purpose of this? If the source is available but can't be used then there is no reason for the source to be available. No one can do anything with that source. The library in question is already released "without warranty of any kind, express or implied". If the author is burdened by support that they explicitly don't need to provide then the answer is to not provide that support. They are under no obligation to do so. Asking to limit the distribution of their product after explicitly licensing it to allow for distribution "without restriction" and "without limitation" is just plainly the wrong approach.

quanticle 5y ago
Exactly. The remedy for the original package author is to put up a banner on their project that says, "I will not be answering questions about my package on NixOS because I disagree with how NixOS packages my library." Failing that they could release their project under a non-free license that restricts redistribution in a way that excludes NixOS. I don't understand what their intent was in requesting that the NixOS packagers voluntarily give up rights that the author had explicitly granted them, via the MIT License.
- squiggleblaz 5y ago
  > Failing that they could release their project under a non-free license that restricts redistribution in a way that excludes NixOS. He wasn't happy with Fedora doing it either. It's a matter of redistribution, not a matter of NixOS. > I don't understand what their intent was in requesting that the NixOS packagers voluntarily give up rights that the author had explicitly granted them, via the MIT License. The author isn't proposing software that a person might use to solve a problem. He's part of a project (Home Automation) that provides a service, and writes tools to that end. People who fundamentally see themselves as providing a service prefer precisely specified, first party dependencies. They see GNU/Linux distributions (which connect users and developers - or alternatively stand between users and developers) as dead ends and irritations. He was saying "if you want to use this, go knock yourself out" but he's also saying "please don't get in between me and my clients".
_flux 5y ago
"Source available" is still useful if the product in question is a library; the source can often answer questions about how to implement certain things, even if you cannot change anything. Source available may also enable you to debug from your code to provider code, as well as compile with different compiler options for better debugging or tracing experience. For end-user applications it makes no difference.
- _emacsomancer_ 5y ago
  I suppose it could make a difference for end-user applications for concerns about privacy/security. As I recall, tarsnap is "source available" for these sorts of reasons.
hbbio 5y ago
There are a lot of purposes. 1. Being able to modify it, which was the original intent of RMS. Of course, such a public license would allow users to modify it and even to distribute their modifications for others, as long as they adhere to the rest of the original software license. 2. Being able to audit it. Either from a security perspective (crypto software, online service, etc.) or just for a safety/quality audit. 3. Being able to build it for a platform of your choosing, especially later in time.
- ako 5y ago
  I was under the assumption that RMS’s main purpose was to protect the users, and especially their ability to use it in a future where the author was no longer maintaining it, or was focused on different features than required by the user. In this case, RMS would be more concerned with nixos’s freedoms rather than the package author’s. Anyways, that is my assumption, I might be wrong…
  - hbbio 5y ago
    In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
    - ako 5y ago
      Thx, sounds like his interest were mostly around protecting the rights of the users/customers, being able to use and modify the software as required.
MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> If the source is available but can't be used then there is no reason for the source to be available. No one can do anything with that source. It's certainly not the equivalent of Free Software, but there would still be some things you could do. You could study the source to learn from it, to check for security issues, or to check for malware. In the FSF's terminology, you wouldn't really have any of the Four Freedoms, but you'd have a fraction of Freedom 1.

quanticle 5y ago

Exactly. The remedy for the original package author is to put up a banner on their project that says, "I will not be answering questions about my package on NixOS because I disagree with how NixOS packages my library." Failing that they could release their project under a non-free license that restricts redistribution in a way that excludes NixOS. I don't understand what their intent was in requesting that the NixOS packagers voluntarily give up rights that the author had explicitly granted them, via the MIT License.

squiggleblaz 5y ago
> Failing that they could release their project under a non-free license that restricts redistribution in a way that excludes NixOS. He wasn't happy with Fedora doing it either. It's a matter of redistribution, not a matter of NixOS. > I don't understand what their intent was in requesting that the NixOS packagers voluntarily give up rights that the author had explicitly granted them, via the MIT License. The author isn't proposing software that a person might use to solve a problem. He's part of a project (Home Automation) that provides a service, and writes tools to that end. People who fundamentally see themselves as providing a service prefer precisely specified, first party dependencies. They see GNU/Linux distributions (which connect users and developers - or alternatively stand between users and developers) as dead ends and irritations. He was saying "if you want to use this, go knock yourself out" but he's also saying "please don't get in between me and my clients".

_flux 5y ago

"Source available" is still useful if the product in question is a library; the source can often answer questions about how to implement certain things, even if you cannot change anything. Source available may also enable you to debug from your code to provider code, as well as compile with different compiler options for better debugging or tracing experience. For end-user applications it makes no difference.

_emacsomancer_ 5y ago
I suppose it could make a difference for end-user applications for concerns about privacy/security. As I recall, tarsnap is "source available" for these sorts of reasons.

hbbio 5y ago

There are a lot of purposes. 1. Being able to modify it, which was the original intent of RMS. Of course, such a public license would allow users to modify it and even to distribute their modifications for others, as long as they adhere to the rest of the original software license. 2. Being able to audit it. Either from a security perspective (crypto software, online service, etc.) or just for a safety/quality audit. 3. Being able to build it for a platform of your choosing, especially later in time.

ako 5y ago
I was under the assumption that RMS’s main purpose was to protect the users, and especially their ability to use it in a future where the author was no longer maintaining it, or was focused on different features than required by the user. In this case, RMS would be more concerned with nixos’s freedoms rather than the package author’s. Anyways, that is my assumption, I might be wrong…
- hbbio 5y ago
  In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
  - ako 5y ago
    Thx, sounds like his interest were mostly around protecting the rights of the users/customers, being able to use and modify the software as required.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> If the source is available but can't be used then there is no reason for the source to be available. No one can do anything with that source. It's certainly not the equivalent of Free Software, but there would still be some things you could do. You could study the source to learn from it, to check for security issues, or to check for malware. In the FSF's terminology, you wouldn't really have any of the Four Freedoms, but you'd have a fraction of Freedom 1.