3 ms·

I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying non-GPL open source licenses (Apache, MPL2, MIT) aren't FOSS? That seems like a pretty extreme position.

bogwog 5y ago
> That seems like a pretty extreme position. I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL). Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users. Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code. If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software. It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman. More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs
- mustache_kimono 5y ago
  I have to tell you -- being patronized by a GPL advocate isn't a new or unusual experience for me, but, I'm still amazed people believe this is the way to win converts. FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's. Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    How am I being patronizing? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're just confused about the definition of some terminology that people commonly get confused about. If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing. > there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's. Sure, but since the conversation is about the FSF, I think it's obvious that I'm talking about the FSF's definition of the term "freedom" (especially since I linked to it) > Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?) Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't introducing you to Android, I was using it as an example to highlight the consequences of using a non-free license on a project. Something I felt would be helpful since you didn't seem to be aware of the FSF's definition of free software. > No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history. Ok, fine, maybe take a 9 or two off the end.
    - mustache_kimono 5y ago
      You've done it! You've converted me with your brilliant repartee! Your dazzling certitude made me realize -- I don't know what I've been doing with my life. On the road to Damascus, I found the FSF. Mr. Stallman's way or the highway!

bogwog 5y ago

> That seems like a pretty extreme position. I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL). Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users. Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code. If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software. It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman. More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs

mustache_kimono 5y ago
I have to tell you -- being patronized by a GPL advocate isn't a new or unusual experience for me, but, I'm still amazed people believe this is the way to win converts. FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's. Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
- bogwog 5y ago
  How am I being patronizing? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're just confused about the definition of some terminology that people commonly get confused about. If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing. > there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's. Sure, but since the conversation is about the FSF, I think it's obvious that I'm talking about the FSF's definition of the term "freedom" (especially since I linked to it) > Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?) Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't introducing you to Android, I was using it as an example to highlight the consequences of using a non-free license on a project. Something I felt would be helpful since you didn't seem to be aware of the FSF's definition of free software. > No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history. Ok, fine, maybe take a 9 or two off the end.
  - mustache_kimono 5y ago
    You've done it! You've converted me with your brilliant repartee! Your dazzling certitude made me realize -- I don't know what I've been doing with my life. On the road to Damascus, I found the FSF. Mr. Stallman's way or the highway!