5 ms·

> However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software This has been happening on HN too. The

> However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software This has been happening on HN too. The vilification of GPL and AGPL as ”not free in the truest sense of the word”, the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic is a testament to how corporate rebranding efforts have succeeded in replacing free software with open-source — software that is conveniently licensed so that corporations can bake it into their product without a single concern for the longevity or well-being of the developer or the software itself.

reidrac 3y ago
I think you mean anti-copyleft. Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, despite the philosophical differences. The issue here is against the copyleft (GPL and AGPL).
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, No ... no they are not >>despite the philosophical differences. And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible
  - reidrac 3y ago
    Well, go and check: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Then see how many of those are OSI approved licences (thus open source).
    - rout39574 3y ago
      Yes, anything the FSF blesses also qualifies as open source. Can you articulate what point you're trying to make, that this supports?
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        The inverse is also true (barring possibly some insignificant exceptions). Can you name any mainstream open source license that is not considered free software?
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      Free implies open source. Open source does not imply free.
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        Any non-copy left license is not free software.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        Wrong according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        FsF have been taken over by corporatists from the open source movement and is shell of it's former self
        reidrac 3y ago
        When did that happen in your opinion? It was like this at least 20 years ago.
        palata 3y ago
        It's not about what you consider or not. The Free Software movement is very clear. It is about the freedom of the user: "I, the copyright owner of my own code, allow you to use my code as long as you let your users have (some kind of) access to my code in the product they buy". Really as an end user, I just don't understand who would be against the Free Software philosophy: either you don't care, or you want as much control as you can on what you buy, but why would you ever say: "I don't want those weird licenses that give me more access to the stuff I buy, I want the other ones that make it completely proprietary and inaccessible". Of course as a company, you want permissive licenses, such that you can use it for free, but keep it proprietary (because companies like to think that this one bugfix they made is very strategic IP).
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Yes, not making it ridiculously easy for corporate to make money off someone's else work without giving anything back is a huge difference. I don't really get why people are for non-copyleft licenses. LGPL is fine license.
    - scj 3y ago
      https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
      - ilyt 3y ago
        So it changed to BSD yet still lost. Your point ?
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    > no they are not Yes they are, according to people who use both terms. All “free software” licenses are also “open source” licenses and vice versa.
    - palata 3y ago
      Free Software is Open Source, but Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.
      - seba_dos1 3y ago
        You're wrong and probably mistaking these terms with copyleft and permissive licenses. Both of these kinds of licenses are both Free Software and Open Source. In practice, pretty much every Open Source license is also Free Software license and vice versa (there are some very nitpicky exceptions, but I guarantee they're not where you'd expect them to be).
- dTal 3y ago
  The following things are all true: * the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense * "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s * liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available * there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source" * consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it * there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".
johnny22 3y ago
> , the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic What if i love and use the AGPL, but also won't involve myself with the FSF because I think they are runining the movement and also definitely want no direct association with RMS. I think RMS is an active harm to the cause of Free Software.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Yeah. Open source is a wealth transfer from developers to corporations. I've reached the conclusion that anything other than AGPLv3 means we're working against our own interests. Giving up the leverage provided by the GPL benefits only corporations.
- fatherlinnux 3y ago
  I think I get the gist of your sentiment, and somewhat agree, but let me clarify. GPL, only enforces redistribution of software you distribute, "to" the people you desteibute it to, aka customers. Most other licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc) don't require any code redistribution (though some require attribution). GPL ~= redistribution to customers Other ~= no redistribution Red Hat is complying with the GPL requirements even for BSD, Apache, and BSD licensed code, which I think is good. I think a more sinister trend forming is around open core, and essentially proprietary code mixed with no code redistribution at all. This makes open core essentially closed source for all intents and purposes. Companies are using open core simply for free marketing and to drive technology adoption in the sales/marketing funnels.

reidrac 3y ago

I think you mean anti-copyleft. Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, despite the philosophical differences. The issue here is against the copyleft (GPL and AGPL).

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, No ... no they are not >>despite the philosophical differences. And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible
- reidrac 3y ago
  Well, go and check: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Then see how many of those are OSI approved licences (thus open source).
  - rout39574 3y ago
    Yes, anything the FSF blesses also qualifies as open source. Can you articulate what point you're trying to make, that this supports?
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      The inverse is also true (barring possibly some insignificant exceptions). Can you name any mainstream open source license that is not considered free software?
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    Free implies open source. Open source does not imply free.
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        Any non-copy left license is not free software.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        Wrong according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        FsF have been taken over by corporatists from the open source movement and is shell of it's former self
        reidrac 3y ago
        When did that happen in your opinion? It was like this at least 20 years ago.
      - palata 3y ago
        It's not about what you consider or not. The Free Software movement is very clear. It is about the freedom of the user: "I, the copyright owner of my own code, allow you to use my code as long as you let your users have (some kind of) access to my code in the product they buy". Really as an end user, I just don't understand who would be against the Free Software philosophy: either you don't care, or you want as much control as you can on what you buy, but why would you ever say: "I don't want those weird licenses that give me more access to the stuff I buy, I want the other ones that make it completely proprietary and inaccessible". Of course as a company, you want permissive licenses, such that you can use it for free, but keep it proprietary (because companies like to think that this one bugfix they made is very strategic IP).
- ilyt 3y ago
  Yes, not making it ridiculously easy for corporate to make money off someone's else work without giving anything back is a huge difference. I don't really get why people are for non-copyleft licenses. LGPL is fine license.
  - scj 3y ago
    https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
    - ilyt 3y ago
      So it changed to BSD yet still lost. Your point ?
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  > no they are not Yes they are, according to people who use both terms. All “free software” licenses are also “open source” licenses and vice versa.
  - palata 3y ago
    Free Software is Open Source, but Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.
    - seba_dos1 3y ago
      You're wrong and probably mistaking these terms with copyleft and permissive licenses. Both of these kinds of licenses are both Free Software and Open Source. In practice, pretty much every Open Source license is also Free Software license and vice versa (there are some very nitpicky exceptions, but I guarantee they're not where you'd expect them to be).
dTal 3y ago
The following things are all true: * the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense * "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s * liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available * there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source" * consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it * there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".

johnny22 3y ago

> , the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic What if i love and use the AGPL, but also won't involve myself with the FSF because I think they are runining the movement and also definitely want no direct association with RMS. I think RMS is an active harm to the cause of Free Software.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Yeah. Open source is a wealth transfer from developers to corporations. I've reached the conclusion that anything other than AGPLv3 means we're working against our own interests. Giving up the leverage provided by the GPL benefits only corporations.

fatherlinnux 3y ago
I think I get the gist of your sentiment, and somewhat agree, but let me clarify. GPL, only enforces redistribution of software you distribute, "to" the people you desteibute it to, aka customers. Most other licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc) don't require any code redistribution (though some require attribution). GPL ~= redistribution to customers Other ~= no redistribution Red Hat is complying with the GPL requirements even for BSD, Apache, and BSD licensed code, which I think is good. I think a more sinister trend forming is around open core, and essentially proprietary code mixed with no code redistribution at all. This makes open core essentially closed source for all intents and purposes. Companies are using open core simply for free marketing and to drive technology adoption in the sales/marketing funnels.