3 ms·

> The Stallman movement failed Citation needed

by dools 3y ago

max_ 3y ago
How many applications, phones, computers do people use that are Stallman compliant?
- version_five 3y ago
  Ideological(ish) movements don't succeed by converting everyone absolutely, they do it by changing the narrative in their direction. Stallman has absolutely done that.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  The Linux Kernel. But answering the “it failed”. Not really. It exists and is a choice on most license dropdowns and is a famous one. People should really default to GPL rather than more permissive licenses and hot take… should also default to closed source. And make open source or non GPL a conscious choice. The reason is GPL gives you more ability to commercialise since it gives you the copyright holder more of an edge over let’s say Amazon Inc who has decided to accept your license to bundle it with a cloud service and extend it. They are obliged to release their source code to their customers. That Ballmer called it a cancer is a great accolade. Close source as a default because it is a one way door publishing the code on the open web. So you are protecting your own interests. You owe the “open source community” nothing and should exploit your IP as much as anyone else, and use GPL to allow people to “fix the printer” if they need to.
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    > The reason is GPL gives you more ability to commercialise since it gives you the copyright holder more of an edge over let’s say Amazon Inc who has decided to accept your license to bundle it with a cloud service and extend it. They are obliged to release their source code to their customers. Not if it's GPLv2 or non-AGPL - and even then what you're describing is the opposite of the underdog-moral-problem a lot of smaller cloud services or database/infrastructure providers are facing whereby Amazon (et al.) simply offers your product or service as their service, which is allowed by all versions of the GPL because Amazon doesn't care about the source-code: they care about charging a premium for access to a hot open-source project without contributing anything back to the actual project maintainers. That's (unfortunately) an argument for going closed-source, or at least having to reserve copyrights/licenses for operating the software as a service for another company. I imagine it's like being Sherlocked by Apple, except Apple was using your work all-along.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  More than none: https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/systems https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/systems https://ryf.fsf.org/ https://ryf.fsf.org/
- abwizz 3y ago
  not much, but most build upon foss and some would not be viable without it.
nvm0n2 3y ago
It failed, yes. If you want to go wide you could argue that all open source is "the Stallman movement" but given Stallman's noted hostility to other approaches than his own, that seems too much. The peak of GPLd software was in the late 90s/early 2000s and since then the base of GPLd code has shrivelled. I can't remember the last time I encountered a library or program in my work that was even LGPL licensed, let alone GPLd, with the exception of some very old programs like the Linux kernel and a few bits of the userspace (plus Java's weird GPL+exceptions thing). These days almost everything new is Apache licensed or similar. Just browse around GitHub for a while and see what I mean. Also: 1. The Linux kernel, the last bastion of Stallmanist philosophy, in reality has succeeded by not actually enforcing the GPL thus treating it more like LGPL or Apache2 in practice. GPL violations are rampant and rarely does anything happen. They also very publicly refused to switch to GPL3. 2. The most popular Linux based OS is Android where Google rewrote the entire userspace specifically to avoid the GPL, and then also created their own driver layer, again, to avoid the GPL and the Linux approach to technical "enforcement" (constant API churn). 3. The most popular UNIX based desktop OS is built on FreeBSD despite losing technical features, specifically because Apple refused to countenance anything GPL or FSF connected. The few dependencies they started with (like gcc) were rewritten into new BSD-style licensed codebases like LLVM at vast expense. In other words the people who actually build operating systems for a living avoid like the plague anything connected to Stallman's vision or strategy. It seems likely that eventually the Linux kernel would also be replaced, certainly Google attempted this with Zircon, but whilst enforcement is so lax and technical workarounds so numerous there isn't much reason for doing so.
- dTal 3y ago
  > I can't remember the last time I encountered a library or program in my work that was even LGPL licensed, let alone GPLd I don't know what line of work you're in but this seems quite unlikely. GTK and Qt are both LGPL (and GNOME and Plasma are GPL). WebKit's JavaScript engine is LGPL. MySQL is GPL. Blender is GPL. Arduino is AGPL. GCC is GPL. Bash is GPLv3. It's hard for me to believe you use the Linux kernel without touching any of these. GPL is wildly popular. It's losing ground, yes, and you correctly identify a primary reason why: commercial software companies correctly see it as a threat, and are fighting it in earnest now. It is a threat. It was designed to be a threat. The purpose of the GPL is to create a self-reinforcing free ecosystem that outcompetes the balkanized proprietary hellscape that preceded the free software movement. At this, it succeeded beyond any reasonable imagining. A lot of the revolutionary spirit has left the free software movement. We are currently in the "good times create weak men" stage of the cycle. People who grew up in the garden of Eden created by the free software movement, who take it for granted that the popular web browsers are open source and Microsoft releases cross-platform IDEs that run on Linux, don't appreciate that the current state of affairs was wrought over decades by the kind of people who spelled it Micro$oft and were willing to tolerate their computers only half working in order to avoid proprietary software of any kind, on principle. But make no mistake, we are still at war. The big corpos know it, even if they've managed to fling enough bread and circuses to fool some into thinking we're all one big happy family now. Giving up on the GPL is how they win, and we lose.
jongjong 3y ago
As a Kubuntu user, I have to disagree. From my perspective as a developer, the Linux PC experience has surpassed both Windows and Mac. I really couldn't care less what the other 95% of people are using. In that case, it's even more remarkable that even with just 5% market share, Linux can deliver such a cohesive, compatible experience. 10 years ago, I couldn't have done my job without Windows. Now I can do absolutely everything using Linux. IMO, people who are still on Windows or Mac don't know what they're doing. They've probably just been drifting through life, not really thinking.

> The Stallman movement failed Citation needed

by dools 3y ago

> The Stallman movement failed Citation needed

max_ 3y ago

How many applications, phones, computers do people use that are Stallman compliant?

version_five 3y ago
Ideological(ish) movements don't succeed by converting everyone absolutely, they do it by changing the narrative in their direction. Stallman has absolutely done that.
quickthrower2 3y ago
The Linux Kernel. But answering the “it failed”. Not really. It exists and is a choice on most license dropdowns and is a famous one. People should really default to GPL rather than more permissive licenses and hot take… should also default to closed source. And make open source or non GPL a conscious choice. The reason is GPL gives you more ability to commercialise since it gives you the copyright holder more of an edge over let’s say Amazon Inc who has decided to accept your license to bundle it with a cloud service and extend it. They are obliged to release their source code to their customers. That Ballmer called it a cancer is a great accolade. Close source as a default because it is a one way door publishing the code on the open web. So you are protecting your own interests. You owe the “open source community” nothing and should exploit your IP as much as anyone else, and use GPL to allow people to “fix the printer” if they need to.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > The reason is GPL gives you more ability to commercialise since it gives you the copyright holder more of an edge over let’s say Amazon Inc who has decided to accept your license to bundle it with a cloud service and extend it. They are obliged to release their source code to their customers. Not if it's GPLv2 or non-AGPL - and even then what you're describing is the opposite of the underdog-moral-problem a lot of smaller cloud services or database/infrastructure providers are facing whereby Amazon (et al.) simply offers your product or service as their service, which is allowed by all versions of the GPL because Amazon doesn't care about the source-code: they care about charging a premium for access to a hot open-source project without contributing anything back to the actual project maintainers. That's (unfortunately) an argument for going closed-source, or at least having to reserve copyrights/licenses for operating the software as a service for another company. I imagine it's like being Sherlocked by Apple, except Apple was using your work all-along.
bheadmaster 3y ago
More than none: https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/systems https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/systems https://ryf.fsf.org/ https://ryf.fsf.org/
abwizz 3y ago
not much, but most build upon foss and some would not be viable without it.

nvm0n2 3y ago

It failed, yes. If you want to go wide you could argue that all open source is "the Stallman movement" but given Stallman's noted hostility to other approaches than his own, that seems too much. The peak of GPLd software was in the late 90s/early 2000s and since then the base of GPLd code has shrivelled. I can't remember the last time I encountered a library or program in my work that was even LGPL licensed, let alone GPLd, with the exception of some very old programs like the Linux kernel and a few bits of the userspace (plus Java's weird GPL+exceptions thing). These days almost everything new is Apache licensed or similar. Just browse around GitHub for a while and see what I mean. Also: 1. The Linux kernel, the last bastion of Stallmanist philosophy, in reality has succeeded by not actually enforcing the GPL thus treating it more like LGPL or Apache2 in practice. GPL violations are rampant and rarely does anything happen. They also very publicly refused to switch to GPL3. 2. The most popular Linux based OS is Android where Google rewrote the entire userspace specifically to avoid the GPL, and then also created their own driver layer, again, to avoid the GPL and the Linux approach to technical "enforcement" (constant API churn). 3. The most popular UNIX based desktop OS is built on FreeBSD despite losing technical features, specifically because Apple refused to countenance anything GPL or FSF connected. The few dependencies they started with (like gcc) were rewritten into new BSD-style licensed codebases like LLVM at vast expense. In other words the people who actually build operating systems for a living avoid like the plague anything connected to Stallman's vision or strategy. It seems likely that eventually the Linux kernel would also be replaced, certainly Google attempted this with Zircon, but whilst enforcement is so lax and technical workarounds so numerous there isn't much reason for doing so.

dTal 3y ago
> I can't remember the last time I encountered a library or program in my work that was even LGPL licensed, let alone GPLd I don't know what line of work you're in but this seems quite unlikely. GTK and Qt are both LGPL (and GNOME and Plasma are GPL). WebKit's JavaScript engine is LGPL. MySQL is GPL. Blender is GPL. Arduino is AGPL. GCC is GPL. Bash is GPLv3. It's hard for me to believe you use the Linux kernel without touching any of these. GPL is wildly popular. It's losing ground, yes, and you correctly identify a primary reason why: commercial software companies correctly see it as a threat, and are fighting it in earnest now. It is a threat. It was designed to be a threat. The purpose of the GPL is to create a self-reinforcing free ecosystem that outcompetes the balkanized proprietary hellscape that preceded the free software movement. At this, it succeeded beyond any reasonable imagining. A lot of the revolutionary spirit has left the free software movement. We are currently in the "good times create weak men" stage of the cycle. People who grew up in the garden of Eden created by the free software movement, who take it for granted that the popular web browsers are open source and Microsoft releases cross-platform IDEs that run on Linux, don't appreciate that the current state of affairs was wrought over decades by the kind of people who spelled it Micro$oft and were willing to tolerate their computers only half working in order to avoid proprietary software of any kind, on principle. But make no mistake, we are still at war. The big corpos know it, even if they've managed to fling enough bread and circuses to fool some into thinking we're all one big happy family now. Giving up on the GPL is how they win, and we lose.

jongjong 3y ago

As a Kubuntu user, I have to disagree. From my perspective as a developer, the Linux PC experience has surpassed both Windows and Mac. I really couldn't care less what the other 95% of people are using. In that case, it's even more remarkable that even with just 5% market share, Linux can deliver such a cohesive, compatible experience. 10 years ago, I couldn't have done my job without Windows. Now I can do absolutely everything using Linux. IMO, people who are still on Windows or Mac don't know what they're doing. They've probably just been drifting through life, not really thinking.