5 ms·

Yeah, I'm familiar with the FSF's philosophy. Limiting freedom in order to protect it. No thanks. It leads to exactly the sort of problem pointed out by the GG

by cwp 5y ago

Yeah, I'm familiar with the FSF's philosophy. Limiting freedom in order to protect it. No thanks. It leads to exactly the sort of problem pointed out by the GGGGP comment - Apple shipping an ancient version of bash because of license incompatibility. Apple cannot open source all of their software. They'd go out of business. So instead we have GNU folks high-fiving because they stopped Apple from using their work without giving back, but millions of users are also prevented from using their work.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Nobody is prevented from using newer versions of Bash. They just don't ship from Apple.
- jw14 5y ago
  Until this moment I didn't know the Apple version of bash was outdated, I reluctantly started using zsh when Apple defaulted to that. Now I don't care about bash. Was that good for bash?
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    What does it matter when you don't care about it? Tomorrow if Apple replaces Zsh with something else, you are the kind who won't care about that too. Those who care about bash, can still install and use it, and more importantly enjoy the freedom of modifying it as much as they want, without any hindrance from Apple or anyone. That's because with FSF opensource licensed softwares, Apple or others using it in their product cannot refuse to give you the source code. Other opensource license don't guarantee such freedom.
- lrvick 5y ago
  Well how will you get it installed? Brew? Well that has no signing support and no supply chain integrity. Hundreds of people have access to push whatever they want to a git repo and anyone is free to forge commits and backdoor all brew users as they like. It is worse than NPM. At least on Windows you can install WSL and then get access to APT which checks RSA author signatures on everything regardless of mirror. MacOS only provides signed packages via their app store. The end. If you want software they don't offer like a modern version of bash, you have to get it from untrusted sources like Brew that risk compromising your system.
  - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
    >Well how will you get it installed? download source code ./configure make sudo make install seems to work for lots of software. By default it should install in /usr/local/<bin/lib> but I've done this for lots of OSS software (e.g. postgres and nginx) on Mac with few problems. Yes, sometimes you have to pursue the odd missing dependency and build that too (e.g. openssl or readline), but I've always managed to build from source in the end without brew or (what's the other one called?).
    - lrvick 5y ago
      Fair enough, but I have never observed another MacOS user in the wild compile from source. No matter the risk, every engineer I know uses brew. MacPorts is the other one and it at least uses some crude bulk openssl signing, but the higher barrier to entry means fewer packages so devs don't use it.
dddnzzz334 5y ago
Yes because Apple users are too stupid to manually install anything.
- cwp 5y ago
  Well, I manually install bash, but most people just use the shell that came with the system. If the FSF wants it to be some other shell than bash, well, ok, mission accomplished.
webmobdev 5y ago
> ... FSF's philosophy. Limiting freedom in order to protect it. You sure have some lopsided idea if you think that the goal of opensource is to protect the "freedom" of the businesses, who want to make money from free labour. FSF opensource license exists to ensure freedom for the end consumers of the software.
- cwp 5y ago
  No, that's not the goal of open source, obviously. In my case, the goal is to let as many people as possible benefit from my labour. I have no problem with businesses using my code to make money and not paying me a dime. It's happened a few times. The end consumers got better software as a result. It wouldn't have been possible with the GPL, which is why I use MIT. I get that the FSF sees it differently, but honestly I don't see how the GPL helped anyone in the case of Apple and bash. It's not like Apple was making significant changes to bash, refusing to contribute them back and making a fortune on the backs of the FSF. Are contributors to the zsh project being exploited by Apple's evil plan to put their work in the hands of many more users? If I find a bug in my Apple-supplied copy of zsh, am I prevented from fixing it like RMS and the printer driver? No.
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    > No, that's not the goal of open source, That is the goal of FSF opensource projects - protect the rights of the developers and users to review and modify code. > The end consumers got better software as a result. I disagree. If they don't have access to the accompanying source code, it is an inferior product. > I don't see how the GPL helped anyone in the case of Apple and bash. Thanks to FSF license, any user can ask the distributor to provide the source code of an FSF licensed app. In our example, that's Apple and they cannot refuse to give you the source code of bash along with the modifications they have made. Which brings me back to the point that needs to be emphasised - GPL and other FSF license was not designed to help businesses and corporates. It's aim is to ensure the freedom of developers and user to review and modify code is preserved. > If I find a bug in my Apple-supplied copy of zsh, am I prevented from fixing it like RMS and the printer driver? No. Yes, if Apple refuses to give you the source code of their customised zsh, then you are indeed being prevented from fixing any bug or adding any new feature! I hope you finally understand - FSF license ensures that Apple (or anyone else) cannot refuse you the source code. Other opensource license don't come with such guarantees.
kaba0 5y ago
I mean, they probably could open-source all of their software, although at a price of weaker lock-in. They are primarily a hardware company with really great solutions for many problems, so it’s not like iphones or macs wouldn’t sell. Hell, in a way not providing decent support for other manufacturers devices could be viewed as anticompetitive (why can’t I goddamn send a file over BT to android in 2021?)
lrvick 5y ago
They will go out of business? This is nonsense. The Android Open Source Project and ChromiumOS have hardly made Google go out of business. Would any significant percentage of Apple fans see an "Apple open sources MacOS" announcement and suddenly throw their Apple gear in the garbage? Of course not. They pay for the support reputation and the pretty well marketed aluminum they can't impress their friends without.
- Someone 5y ago
  Not suddenly, but looking at what happened to IBM and PC clones (hardware) and IBM and OS/2’s compatibility with Windows (software): yes, probably. They’re both different cases, but, IMO, still apply. If Apple open-sourced their platform, Microsoft could choose to offer Windows Services for Macintosh, and hardware manufacturers could offer cheap hardware that runs Mac OS. Microsoft could follow up by stopping offering Office for Mac OS or to by letting it (further) fall behind the Windows version. Adobe could follow suit.
- cwp 5y ago
  It wouldn't be overnight, but Apple's business would no longer be sustainable. Samsung and a dozen Chinese companies would instantly start shipping iOS devices. Sure, the hardware wouldn't be quite as good as Apple's, but they'd still steal a big chunk of Apple's market share. Then it'd be a few years of slow bleeding where they subsidize their competitors, unable to compete on price and eventually die. This same dynamic would apply to Macs as well, of course. In fact, this very thing came this close to killing Apple in the 90s. They licensed MacOS to clone makers, who immediately took the high-end high-margin market, and left Apple to develop MacOS and sell low-margin, entry-level machines. It took the return of Steve Jobs to turn the company around. They were weeks away from bankrupcy. He immediately killed the clone makers, begged/threatened Microsoft into giving them bridge funding, and started work on the candy-colored iMac. As for Android, well, it's nominally open source, but an awful lot of the stuff you need to ship a competitive OS is actually closed and closely guarded by Google. It's a bit more open than Darwin, but not much. If you stick to ASOP, you've basically got Froyo. So, yeah, Chromium and is for real, and again it's a bit more open than WebKit in that it also includes the app chrome, and not just the web engine. But coincidentally, Google benefits from an open, standards-based web; it doesn't threaten their revenue at all. Go figure.
mehrdada 5y ago
> I'm familiar with the FSF's philosophy. Limiting freedom in order to protect it. I don't think that is a good characterization of FSF philosophy. Better characterization is maximizing freedom for the [end-]user, as opposed to, for you, the developer, or other parties involved. > millions of users are also prevented from using their work. That is extremely weird to blame on GNU (sort of akin to "victim-shaming"). First, how are they prevented exactly, when the can download whatever GNU bash they want themselves? Second, it is Apple's deliberate choice to boycott and not to ship the software due to a perceived burden on them (or rather their active desire to keep unreasonable control,) than a legitimate concern imposed by the GNU GPL license. If any user is deprived of anything you got to blame Apple first for doing so.
- cwp 5y ago
  I think it's quite a good characterization. The FSF is pretty clear about their philosophy. They define four essential freedoms, two of which relate to redistributing software. By definition, someone who redistributes software is not the end user. In What is Free Software[0] the FSF says, "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so." It looks to me like the FSF takes the freedom to redistribute software fairly seriously. Yet the GPL explicitly forbids redistribution unless certain conditions are met. In other words, they limit freedoms 2 and 3. Given how seriously they take freedom, you'd think they have a good reason for limiting it. They do: to maximize the spread of freedom, even if it is limited. RMS, for example, wrote[1] "I make my code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make it free as well." RMS also wrote an article called Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software[2]. But I'm not missing the point of free software. I understand the point very well. I just have different values. I don't care if other people who write software make it free. I want to maximize the value and utility of the software I write, and restricting freedom gets in the way of that. Here's the thing: the FSF is basically trying to make the world safe for coders. All software should come with source code, so that everyone can tinker to their heart's content. But most people can't do that. Being able to modify the source is useless to them. Heck, even downloading and installing it is difficult. I guarantee you that the number of people who could install bash—even a binary distribution—is dwarfed by the number that could use it to run command-line tools. They'll just use whatever shell comes with the system. And if the FSF won't let Apple ship bash, they'll ship something else. So yeah, the FSF is preventing people from using bash. They think it's justified. I don't. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

by cwp 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Nobody is prevented from using newer versions of Bash. They just don't ship from Apple.

jw14 5y ago
Until this moment I didn't know the Apple version of bash was outdated, I reluctantly started using zsh when Apple defaulted to that. Now I don't care about bash. Was that good for bash?
- webmobdev 5y ago
  What does it matter when you don't care about it? Tomorrow if Apple replaces Zsh with something else, you are the kind who won't care about that too. Those who care about bash, can still install and use it, and more importantly enjoy the freedom of modifying it as much as they want, without any hindrance from Apple or anyone. That's because with FSF opensource licensed softwares, Apple or others using it in their product cannot refuse to give you the source code. Other opensource license don't guarantee such freedom.
lrvick 5y ago
Well how will you get it installed? Brew? Well that has no signing support and no supply chain integrity. Hundreds of people have access to push whatever they want to a git repo and anyone is free to forge commits and backdoor all brew users as they like. It is worse than NPM. At least on Windows you can install WSL and then get access to APT which checks RSA author signatures on everything regardless of mirror. MacOS only provides signed packages via their app store. The end. If you want software they don't offer like a modern version of bash, you have to get it from untrusted sources like Brew that risk compromising your system.
- bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
  >Well how will you get it installed? download source code ./configure make sudo make install seems to work for lots of software. By default it should install in /usr/local/<bin/lib> but I've done this for lots of OSS software (e.g. postgres and nginx) on Mac with few problems. Yes, sometimes you have to pursue the odd missing dependency and build that too (e.g. openssl or readline), but I've always managed to build from source in the end without brew or (what's the other one called?).
  - lrvick 5y ago
    Fair enough, but I have never observed another MacOS user in the wild compile from source. No matter the risk, every engineer I know uses brew. MacPorts is the other one and it at least uses some crude bulk openssl signing, but the higher barrier to entry means fewer packages so devs don't use it.

dddnzzz334 5y ago

Yes because Apple users are too stupid to manually install anything.

cwp 5y ago
Well, I manually install bash, but most people just use the shell that came with the system. If the FSF wants it to be some other shell than bash, well, ok, mission accomplished.

webmobdev 5y ago

> ... FSF's philosophy. Limiting freedom in order to protect it. You sure have some lopsided idea if you think that the goal of opensource is to protect the "freedom" of the businesses, who want to make money from free labour. FSF opensource license exists to ensure freedom for the end consumers of the software.

cwp 5y ago
No, that's not the goal of open source, obviously. In my case, the goal is to let as many people as possible benefit from my labour. I have no problem with businesses using my code to make money and not paying me a dime. It's happened a few times. The end consumers got better software as a result. It wouldn't have been possible with the GPL, which is why I use MIT. I get that the FSF sees it differently, but honestly I don't see how the GPL helped anyone in the case of Apple and bash. It's not like Apple was making significant changes to bash, refusing to contribute them back and making a fortune on the backs of the FSF. Are contributors to the zsh project being exploited by Apple's evil plan to put their work in the hands of many more users? If I find a bug in my Apple-supplied copy of zsh, am I prevented from fixing it like RMS and the printer driver? No.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  > No, that's not the goal of open source, That is the goal of FSF opensource projects - protect the rights of the developers and users to review and modify code. > The end consumers got better software as a result. I disagree. If they don't have access to the accompanying source code, it is an inferior product. > I don't see how the GPL helped anyone in the case of Apple and bash. Thanks to FSF license, any user can ask the distributor to provide the source code of an FSF licensed app. In our example, that's Apple and they cannot refuse to give you the source code of bash along with the modifications they have made. Which brings me back to the point that needs to be emphasised - GPL and other FSF license was not designed to help businesses and corporates. It's aim is to ensure the freedom of developers and user to review and modify code is preserved. > If I find a bug in my Apple-supplied copy of zsh, am I prevented from fixing it like RMS and the printer driver? No. Yes, if Apple refuses to give you the source code of their customised zsh, then you are indeed being prevented from fixing any bug or adding any new feature! I hope you finally understand - FSF license ensures that Apple (or anyone else) cannot refuse you the source code. Other opensource license don't come with such guarantees.

kaba0 5y ago

I mean, they probably could open-source all of their software, although at a price of weaker lock-in. They are primarily a hardware company with really great solutions for many problems, so it’s not like iphones or macs wouldn’t sell. Hell, in a way not providing decent support for other manufacturers devices could be viewed as anticompetitive (why can’t I goddamn send a file over BT to android in 2021?)

lrvick 5y ago

They will go out of business? This is nonsense. The Android Open Source Project and ChromiumOS have hardly made Google go out of business. Would any significant percentage of Apple fans see an "Apple open sources MacOS" announcement and suddenly throw their Apple gear in the garbage? Of course not. They pay for the support reputation and the pretty well marketed aluminum they can't impress their friends without.

Someone 5y ago
Not suddenly, but looking at what happened to IBM and PC clones (hardware) and IBM and OS/2’s compatibility with Windows (software): yes, probably. They’re both different cases, but, IMO, still apply. If Apple open-sourced their platform, Microsoft could choose to offer Windows Services for Macintosh, and hardware manufacturers could offer cheap hardware that runs Mac OS. Microsoft could follow up by stopping offering Office for Mac OS or to by letting it (further) fall behind the Windows version. Adobe could follow suit.
cwp 5y ago
It wouldn't be overnight, but Apple's business would no longer be sustainable. Samsung and a dozen Chinese companies would instantly start shipping iOS devices. Sure, the hardware wouldn't be quite as good as Apple's, but they'd still steal a big chunk of Apple's market share. Then it'd be a few years of slow bleeding where they subsidize their competitors, unable to compete on price and eventually die. This same dynamic would apply to Macs as well, of course. In fact, this very thing came this close to killing Apple in the 90s. They licensed MacOS to clone makers, who immediately took the high-end high-margin market, and left Apple to develop MacOS and sell low-margin, entry-level machines. It took the return of Steve Jobs to turn the company around. They were weeks away from bankrupcy. He immediately killed the clone makers, begged/threatened Microsoft into giving them bridge funding, and started work on the candy-colored iMac. As for Android, well, it's nominally open source, but an awful lot of the stuff you need to ship a competitive OS is actually closed and closely guarded by Google. It's a bit more open than Darwin, but not much. If you stick to ASOP, you've basically got Froyo. So, yeah, Chromium and is for real, and again it's a bit more open than WebKit in that it also includes the app chrome, and not just the web engine. But coincidentally, Google benefits from an open, standards-based web; it doesn't threaten their revenue at all. Go figure.

mehrdada 5y ago

> I'm familiar with the FSF's philosophy. Limiting freedom in order to protect it. I don't think that is a good characterization of FSF philosophy. Better characterization is maximizing freedom for the [end-]user, as opposed to, for you, the developer, or other parties involved. > millions of users are also prevented from using their work. That is extremely weird to blame on GNU (sort of akin to "victim-shaming"). First, how are they prevented exactly, when the can download whatever GNU bash they want themselves? Second, it is Apple's deliberate choice to boycott and not to ship the software due to a perceived burden on them (or rather their active desire to keep unreasonable control,) than a legitimate concern imposed by the GNU GPL license. If any user is deprived of anything you got to blame Apple first for doing so.

cwp 5y ago
I think it's quite a good characterization. The FSF is pretty clear about their philosophy. They define four essential freedoms, two of which relate to redistributing software. By definition, someone who redistributes software is not the end user. In What is Free Software[0] the FSF says, "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so." It looks to me like the FSF takes the freedom to redistribute software fairly seriously. Yet the GPL explicitly forbids redistribution unless certain conditions are met. In other words, they limit freedoms 2 and 3. Given how seriously they take freedom, you'd think they have a good reason for limiting it. They do: to maximize the spread of freedom, even if it is limited. RMS, for example, wrote[1] "I make my code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make it free as well." RMS also wrote an article called Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software[2]. But I'm not missing the point of free software. I understand the point very well. I just have different values. I don't care if other people who write software make it free. I want to maximize the value and utility of the software I write, and restricting freedom gets in the way of that. Here's the thing: the FSF is basically trying to make the world safe for coders. All software should come with source code, so that everyone can tinker to their heart's content. But most people can't do that. Being able to modify the source is useless to them. Heck, even downloading and installing it is difficult. I guarantee you that the number of people who could install bash—even a binary distribution—is dwarfed by the number that could use it to run command-line tools. They'll just use whatever shell comes with the system. And if the FSF won't let Apple ship bash, they'll ship something else. So yeah, the FSF is preventing people from using bash. They think it's justified. I don't. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html