9 ms·

I disagree. The proposition of source being delivered with any software is indeed unrealistic, but not a bad starting point. For software that is funded public

I disagree. The proposition of source being delivered with any software is indeed unrealistic, but not a bad starting point. For software that is funded publically these requirements could be realistic for example. Consumers won't demand it of course, but especially when software goes out of maintenance, it would be a huge help to get the source. Unrealistic with copyright protections, but I see the new gang of questionable FSF advocates far more critically. I didn't downvote you, but I believe your are just wrong here.

arp242 3y ago
"Source delivered" can mean many different things though. Stallman's position is essentially that the source must be delivered in a way that respects the four freedoms and any compromise on that is "unethical" and not worth pursuing. My position is that we should start with just having access to the source under any terms, no matter how restrictive, and then move from there. > I didn't downvote you Just to clarify: I wouldn't mind if you did. It was just an observation about the knee-jerk response from someone who clearly hasn't even bothered to read the comment.
- toyg 3y ago
  > we should start with just having access to the source under any terms Lol. Windows source code has been available under severely-restricted terms, officially for academic purposes, for what, 20 years? It didn't do any good. I've seen these debates for 25 years by now, they are always the same.
  - arp242 3y ago
    What I mean is "required to ship it with every copy as a matter of right to repair", as I mentioned a few comments early.
    - toyg 3y ago
      There is no "right to repair" without the 4 freedoms. You can't "repair" if you cannot inspect and run (0 and 1), and your repair is fundamentally meaningless if you cannot communicate it (2 and 3).
      - arp242 3y ago
        > your repair is fundamentally meaningless if you cannot communicate it (2 and 3). I have spent significant amount of time working around bugs and limitations in proprietary software that could have been fixed easily otherwise, and simply being able to fix it for myself or our company would absolutely be beneficial. This is so staggeringly blindly obvious that it pains me that this is even a point of contention. Of course things would be better if you can also share, but merely being able to repair is also useful in and of itself. This is exactly the sort of Stallmanistic attitude that's impeding any sort of progress, and why we'll still be having the same discussion 30 years from now with no significant movement in the grand scheme of things.
        toyg 3y ago
        > simply being able to fix it for myself or our company would absolutely be beneficial. That's basically the old Unix model, in practice it was unsatisfactory to the point that... people just wrote their own Unix and made a point that fixes should be public - and we got GNU. Companies could give you the old Unix model tomorrow, if they so wished; but it's effectively lose-lose, because they don't gain anything meaningful (if anything, their support costs are increased by having to deal with thousands of potential user-introduced variations) and you don't gain anything meaningful either - your fix is forgotten the minute you move on and you won't be able to use it with your next employer.
        alexvoda 3y ago
        You are missing GPs point. The default today is not the Unix model, it is the Windows model and increasingly the SaaS model. You have none of the 4 freedoms by default. GP argued that by law by default you should have at least freedom 0 and 1. GP argued that it should not be legal to withhold freedom 0 and 1. GP argued that freedom 0 and 1 should by default actually be facilitated by providing source code. They are arguing for changing the status quo and that doing so gradually is more feasible than all at once. (Source code is not actually necessary for freedom 1 but it makes it orders of magnitude easier.) You are arguing that the law is fine because we can just make our own sandbox (GPL software) where we have all 4 freedoms and that is enough. You are arguing that the status quo is fine because you can ignore it while you are in the sandbox. Turns out the world is a lot bigger than that sandbox. Your approach towards a world of free software might be to just grow the sandbox until everything else doesn't matter but the GNU GPL family continues to decline in popularity. For this approach you need popularity and for popularity you need effective advocacy and the FSF is not effective.

arp242 3y ago

"Source delivered" can mean many different things though. Stallman's position is essentially that the source must be delivered in a way that respects the four freedoms and any compromise on that is "unethical" and not worth pursuing. My position is that we should start with just having access to the source under any terms, no matter how restrictive, and then move from there. > I didn't downvote you Just to clarify: I wouldn't mind if you did. It was just an observation about the knee-jerk response from someone who clearly hasn't even bothered to read the comment.

toyg 3y ago
> we should start with just having access to the source under any terms Lol. Windows source code has been available under severely-restricted terms, officially for academic purposes, for what, 20 years? It didn't do any good. I've seen these debates for 25 years by now, they are always the same.
- arp242 3y ago
  What I mean is "required to ship it with every copy as a matter of right to repair", as I mentioned a few comments early.
  - toyg 3y ago
    There is no "right to repair" without the 4 freedoms. You can't "repair" if you cannot inspect and run (0 and 1), and your repair is fundamentally meaningless if you cannot communicate it (2 and 3).
    - arp242 3y ago
      > your repair is fundamentally meaningless if you cannot communicate it (2 and 3). I have spent significant amount of time working around bugs and limitations in proprietary software that could have been fixed easily otherwise, and simply being able to fix it for myself or our company would absolutely be beneficial. This is so staggeringly blindly obvious that it pains me that this is even a point of contention. Of course things would be better if you can also share, but merely being able to repair is also useful in and of itself. This is exactly the sort of Stallmanistic attitude that's impeding any sort of progress, and why we'll still be having the same discussion 30 years from now with no significant movement in the grand scheme of things.
      - toyg 3y ago
        > simply being able to fix it for myself or our company would absolutely be beneficial. That's basically the old Unix model, in practice it was unsatisfactory to the point that... people just wrote their own Unix and made a point that fixes should be public - and we got GNU. Companies could give you the old Unix model tomorrow, if they so wished; but it's effectively lose-lose, because they don't gain anything meaningful (if anything, their support costs are increased by having to deal with thousands of potential user-introduced variations) and you don't gain anything meaningful either - your fix is forgotten the minute you move on and you won't be able to use it with your next employer.
        alexvoda 3y ago
        You are missing GPs point. The default today is not the Unix model, it is the Windows model and increasingly the SaaS model. You have none of the 4 freedoms by default. GP argued that by law by default you should have at least freedom 0 and 1. GP argued that it should not be legal to withhold freedom 0 and 1. GP argued that freedom 0 and 1 should by default actually be facilitated by providing source code. They are arguing for changing the status quo and that doing so gradually is more feasible than all at once. (Source code is not actually necessary for freedom 1 but it makes it orders of magnitude easier.) You are arguing that the law is fine because we can just make our own sandbox (GPL software) where we have all 4 freedoms and that is enough. You are arguing that the status quo is fine because you can ignore it while you are in the sandbox. Turns out the world is a lot bigger than that sandbox. Your approach towards a world of free software might be to just grow the sandbox until everything else doesn't matter but the GNU GPL family continues to decline in popularity. For this approach you need popularity and for popularity you need effective advocacy and the FSF is not effective.