4 ms·

Anyone feel like FSF moved from maybe engineering idealists to a very lawyer driven type org? The big GPLv3 push and development - plenty of attacks on folks a

Anyone feel like FSF moved from maybe engineering idealists to a very lawyer driven type org? The big GPLv3 push and development - plenty of attacks on folks actually shipping product on GPLv2 and building communities around that model (which keeps software free but allows users of the software to do what they want with it pretty much including putting in devices that are locked down - cars / tivo's etc). Here's an opportunity to really advance in an interesting area with ML -> something that may open up programming to more people -> may advance computers ability to program and modify their own programs in the long run. And regardless of the FSF attorney stuff, places like china, tiny little LLC's with no assets will very likely use the wonderful amount of code on the web to develop solutions in this space, even if FSF claims everything is a violation. Where is the vision anymore from FSF. One thing that's been sad about the FSF -> it's gone from what I would consider a forward looking idealism sort of thing -> here's how we could do / make cool stuff that let communities work together -> to now sort of a legal compliance type org that really is focused on "actionable claims" " protected against violations" etc. Question - does the Linux community and other successful larger open source communities welcome the FSF and their attorney's into the discussion? I can hardly imagine the BSD's, the Linux folks really connecting anymore with them. Is there space for a different group, maybe a collection of actual develops shipping code in larger communities to get together, no FSF / SFC lawyers present, to think creatively about the future? What should we be working for, what is fair to everyone, what helps society, what works around pro-social community building? A tool that helps with cross language building blocks for common functions etc (stackoverflow on steroids) - just how bad is this?

e40 5y ago
No. The FSF had lawyers from the beginning and always thought (I talked with RMS in the early 80's some) that enforcement was part of the plan.
- slownews45 5y ago
  Sure, but the GPLv2 was very freedom oriented. Enforcement practically was relatively sparse and more educational I thought. Ie, release the TiVo source code, but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately.
  - detaro 5y ago
    > but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. They literally made the GPLv3 because they cared about that very much.
    - vhold 5y ago
      In case anybody is wondering about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization
    - slownews45 5y ago
      The FSF did GPLv3. The folks doing Linux etc did not.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        You asked if the FSF changed.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      Don't forget the threat of patents.
    - pabs3 5y ago
      Here are some links about the history around Tivo & GPLv3: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    > Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately. While the corporate momentum switched to Apache/MIT licenses, there are strong communities built on AGPLv3/GPLv3. * Nextcloud - file hosting (AGPLv3) * Source Hut - git hosting (AGPLv3) * StreetComplete - OpenStreetMap editing (GPLv3) * F-Droid - Free Software "app store" for android (GPLv3) * NewPipe - alternative Youtube frontend (GPLv3) While these aren't necessarily used by large corporations, their individual communities are thriving and strong. The shift toward SSPL and Commons Clause licensing is another argument in favor of AGPLv3 licensing. Amazon/Google often won't touch your AGPLv3 code (and you can still sell proprietary licenses to other companies that can't/won't use AGPLv3).
danhor 5y ago
This is more of a tangent, but I found this framing very interesting: > which keeps software free but allows users of the software to do what they want with it pretty much including putting in devices that are locked down - cars / tivo's etc The FSF considers the user to be the one using cars/tivo's/other devices. In their view, this was a design flaw of gplv2 that it allowed locking out end-users of their devices. For Linux this was not the case. The important part that modifications/extensions were shared (and maybe even upstreamed), while the end user access wasn't important. The case of tivoization fractured the interest between the mostly moral "I want freedom for the end user" and the more immediately benefical "If you use my code, I want reciprocity for modifications". I personally believe that today the latter case won, even for a lot of non-gpl software that gets lots of contributions e.g. via github for lots of different reasons, but the moral case gets more dire. Looking at security for older (or shockingly often even current) devices, right to repair and lots of other issues concerning the effective loss of rights with more modern devices, the concerns of the FSF were often accurate, but with the increasingly hostile approach to "proprietary" IP and thus the exclusion of GPLv3 and similar licenses not palatable to the larger open source community. The approach to IP in china is also sometimes a lot different, see https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297.
- slownews45 5y ago
  Right - FSF ended up with a user view. Problem was the developers are the one actually writing the code and picking licenses, and the FSF moved away from really talking with them. I think this was a big shift.
- pabs3 5y ago
  Some interesting links about the TiVo stuff: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... Apparently what TiVo did (breaking proprietary software if you modify GPLed software) is even allowed by GPLv3.
laumars 5y ago
I’m all for advancing machine learning but given how much big corporations aggressively defend their IP, it’s a hard pill to swallow if someone shrugs off a potential misuse of open source code. The law is the law and if it’s ok for Microsoft to defend their copyrights then it’s ok for the FSF to defend my copyrighted code too. The fact that I licensed it GPL was intentional — if I didn’t give a crap what happened to the code then I’d have used BSD or similar. But I chose to place restrictions and I’m very much interested to see if training proprietary AI models are legally covered under those restrictions.
blendergeek 5y ago
> The big GPLv3 push and development - plenty of attacks on folks actually shipping product on GPLv2 and building communities around that model (which keeps software free but allows users of the software to do what they want with it pretty much including putting in devices that are locked down - cars / tivo's etc). The users of the software are the owners of the devices. The distributors are the ones locking down the devices to prevent the users from modifying the software (often so that the distributors can control something else the users are doing). GPL is about end-user freedom (as opposed to software distributor freedom). This is why GPLv3 exists.
- slownews45 5y ago
  GPL used to be targeted at DEVELOPERS of software - the share and share alike model. These developers would in some cases use the GPL'ed software in locked down devices (many / most android devices are pretty locked down - but developers contribute to a GPL kernel). So yes, FSF created GPLv3 to focus on USERS freedoms, but the users are not writing the software - so it remains the devs who pick licenses.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    The Free Software definition always put users first.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_Four_Essential_Freedoms_of_Free_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    I've never met a developer who is not a user.
simion314 5y ago
>And regardless of the FSF attorney stuff, places like china, .... So your argument is if China does not care about license neither should we, the thing is I am fine with that, I know Windows source code is leaked so let's train an AI on it too I think is a clear sign that MS did not trained on proprietary code , it means that is not legal or not safe, so the question is why GPL or other licenses are safe, I think you need the authors or the licenses to give you the permission to use the code as training data in black box, locked, proprietary algorithms.

e40 5y ago

No. The FSF had lawyers from the beginning and always thought (I talked with RMS in the early 80's some) that enforcement was part of the plan.

slownews45 5y ago
Sure, but the GPLv2 was very freedom oriented. Enforcement practically was relatively sparse and more educational I thought. Ie, release the TiVo source code, but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately.
- detaro 5y ago
  > but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. They literally made the GPLv3 because they cared about that very much.
  - vhold 5y ago
    In case anybody is wondering about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization
  - slownews45 5y ago
    The FSF did GPLv3. The folks doing Linux etc did not.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      You asked if the FSF changed.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Don't forget the threat of patents.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    Here are some links about the history around Tivo & GPLv3: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- blendergeek 5y ago
  > Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately. While the corporate momentum switched to Apache/MIT licenses, there are strong communities built on AGPLv3/GPLv3. * Nextcloud - file hosting (AGPLv3) * Source Hut - git hosting (AGPLv3) * StreetComplete - OpenStreetMap editing (GPLv3) * F-Droid - Free Software "app store" for android (GPLv3) * NewPipe - alternative Youtube frontend (GPLv3) While these aren't necessarily used by large corporations, their individual communities are thriving and strong. The shift toward SSPL and Commons Clause licensing is another argument in favor of AGPLv3 licensing. Amazon/Google often won't touch your AGPLv3 code (and you can still sell proprietary licenses to other companies that can't/won't use AGPLv3).

danhor 5y ago

This is more of a tangent, but I found this framing very interesting: > which keeps software free but allows users of the software to do what they want with it pretty much including putting in devices that are locked down - cars / tivo's etc The FSF considers the user to be the one using cars/tivo's/other devices. In their view, this was a design flaw of gplv2 that it allowed locking out end-users of their devices. For Linux this was not the case. The important part that modifications/extensions were shared (and maybe even upstreamed), while the end user access wasn't important. The case of tivoization fractured the interest between the mostly moral "I want freedom for the end user" and the more immediately benefical "If you use my code, I want reciprocity for modifications". I personally believe that today the latter case won, even for a lot of non-gpl software that gets lots of contributions e.g. via github for lots of different reasons, but the moral case gets more dire. Looking at security for older (or shockingly often even current) devices, right to repair and lots of other issues concerning the effective loss of rights with more modern devices, the concerns of the FSF were often accurate, but with the increasingly hostile approach to "proprietary" IP and thus the exclusion of GPLv3 and similar licenses not palatable to the larger open source community. The approach to IP in china is also sometimes a lot different, see https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297.

slownews45 5y ago
Right - FSF ended up with a user view. Problem was the developers are the one actually writing the code and picking licenses, and the FSF moved away from really talking with them. I think this was a big shift.
pabs3 5y ago
Some interesting links about the TiVo stuff: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... Apparently what TiVo did (breaking proprietary software if you modify GPLed software) is even allowed by GPLv3.

laumars 5y ago

I’m all for advancing machine learning but given how much big corporations aggressively defend their IP, it’s a hard pill to swallow if someone shrugs off a potential misuse of open source code. The law is the law and if it’s ok for Microsoft to defend their copyrights then it’s ok for the FSF to defend my copyrighted code too. The fact that I licensed it GPL was intentional — if I didn’t give a crap what happened to the code then I’d have used BSD or similar. But I chose to place restrictions and I’m very much interested to see if training proprietary AI models are legally covered under those restrictions.

blendergeek 5y ago

> The big GPLv3 push and development - plenty of attacks on folks actually shipping product on GPLv2 and building communities around that model (which keeps software free but allows users of the software to do what they want with it pretty much including putting in devices that are locked down - cars / tivo's etc). The users of the software are the owners of the devices. The distributors are the ones locking down the devices to prevent the users from modifying the software (often so that the distributors can control something else the users are doing). GPL is about end-user freedom (as opposed to software distributor freedom). This is why GPLv3 exists.

slownews45 5y ago
GPL used to be targeted at DEVELOPERS of software - the share and share alike model. These developers would in some cases use the GPL'ed software in locked down devices (many / most android devices are pretty locked down - but developers contribute to a GPL kernel). So yes, FSF created GPLv3 to focus on USERS freedoms, but the users are not writing the software - so it remains the devs who pick licenses.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  The Free Software definition always put users first.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_Four_Essential_Freedoms_of_Free_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...
- goodpoint 5y ago
  I've never met a developer who is not a user.

simion314 5y ago

>And regardless of the FSF attorney stuff, places like china, .... So your argument is if China does not care about license neither should we, the thing is I am fine with that, I know Windows source code is leaked so let's train an AI on it too I think is a clear sign that MS did not trained on proprietary code , it means that is not legal or not safe, so the question is why GPL or other licenses are safe, I think you need the authors or the licenses to give you the permission to use the code as training data in black box, locked, proprietary algorithms.