4 ms·

A new community space for discussing free software

57 points by wicket 3y ago

Olesya000 3y ago
[dead]
mkesper 3y ago
This is welcome news. More and more projects are only (or mainly) reachable via proprietary platforms like discord.
bruce511 3y ago
I went to the site hoping to see forums discussing the commercialisation of OSS. Ya know, how to make enough money so you can afford to do this as a day job. There is a pretty quiet section on funding, pretty low down. Not much there. First forum though (organised by category) is how not to sign a CLA [1]. The thread seems determined that no contribution should be made to a project that ends up going commercial. I feel this is the subtle underlying theme in too many OSS discussions. Not just the overt "free as in freedom", but also the covert idea that "free means non commercial". I say covert, because of course the FSF manifesto specifically says you can sell free software. You're not even limited to selling your own software, you can sell -anyones- free software. Which leads a developer to a place where they like something enough to want to contribute something to the project, but at the same time add limits to the project -now- to give them fewer options in the future. If a project disappoints you, sure, fork it then. If you don't want people to profit from your free labor, then simply don't give it. And if you don't want to sign a CLA then don't sign it. (I expect this comment won't age well as the front page of the site changes :) [1] https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/anti-cla-action-what-to-do-when-you-encounter-a-cla/226/1 https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/anti-cla-action-wh...
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  >The thread seems determined that no contribution should be made to a project that ends up going commercial. The thread seems to have no issues with free software being commercial, they take issues with a CLA that either allows an organization to relicense your contributions or have an exclusive ability to sell those contributions. In essence, preventing you from selling their free software while they can sell yours. Also, the conclusions of that thread largely seem to be the same ones you reached. Refuse to sign a CLA you don't agree with, fork projects egregious policies, and don't contribute to things you disagree with.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    They can't prevent you from selling the software now. You can do whatever you like up to thr point they change the license, at which point you can fork it. They are preventing you from leveraging -their- (not released under free license) updates after that point.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      I'm not so sure, some of them are worded saying they own all copyright attributed to the project. Seemingly they could say anyone besides them selling it is violating their copyright and at least spawn a nightmare court case.
      - bruce511 3y ago
        If its currently under an OSS license then anyone can sell it. Of course if it's not currently under an OSS license then whatever their license days applies.
- bregma 3y ago
  Yes, it looks like many (most) people there don't understand copyright law or the contract law of contribution licensing. It looks like that to some, freedom means their ability to control others. They keep using the word "freedonm" but I don't think the word means what they think it means. Also, they don't mention the mandatory CLA of all FSF projects, the grandparent of all free software.
  - phkahler 3y ago
    The FSF CLA is so they can relicense to a newer license if some new vulnerability is found, like why GPL3 was needed. I'm mixed on my opinion of that.
  - amszmidt 3y ago
    The FSF copyright assignment isn't mandatory at all, and has never been. Many GNU projects use it, many don't. The copyright assignment also has wording to the extent that the FSF cannot just relicense things under a non-free software license. Here is some information: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2022/fall/copyright-assignment-with-the-fsf https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2022/fall/copyright-assignment-... and maybe https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers...
- Macha 3y ago
  > I went to the site hoping to see forums discussing the commercialisation of OSS. Ya know, how to make enough money so you can afford to do this as a day job. Why? Elastic, Redis, Mongo etc. have enough funding, employees and supporters enough to argue for themselves (and do, often and loudly), since they have the commercial revenue and favourable to themselves licenses. Why should the community be their mouthpiece?
- jlokier 3y ago
  I think people's stated positions on CLAs are often not clearly thought out. Mostly when I've seen people object to CLAs, it's on the grounds that it's not acceptable for any company to be able to take freely contributed code and fork it into a proprietary licenced version or change of open source license, yet... the same people encourage contributions to permissively licensed projects, such as MIT/BSD/Apache license, which explicitly grant companies the ability to do those same things! Some CLAs are almost identical to the effect of contributions being under a permissive license like MIT/BSD/Apache. So when I've seen blanket CLA objections, I usually have the impression the person hasn't really thought about what it means, and they're saying it as more of a cultural signifier than anything with a clear goal. I've encountered this while evaluating whether to release a project under the GPL, where I wanted the option to relicense it more permissively later (for everyone), and I wanted that to be clear up front with any contributors. For that, a CLA seems appropriate, but the community has evolved to find them objectionable.
TylerLives 3y ago
Okay, so they're building "safe", but "powerful" spaces with "political awareness that extends further than a simple understanding of free software liberation and includes solidarity against all struggles for liberation". I wouldn't be interested in joining even without this craziness, but there has to be a significant amount of people who read this stuff and think that it's at least a bit strange. I feel like I'm in some dystopian novel where everything has the opposite meaning of what it presents itself as. I wonder what the numbers are though. How many people are unaware of what this is? How many know what it is, but promote it for Machiavellian reasons? How many are too afraid to speak out? And most importantly, what will it take to free ourselves from these freedom fighters? A well organized minority will always rule a disorganized majority. I suppose some other group will have to organize around a different, but equally pragmatic set of principles?
- dartos 3y ago
  So you don’t like their political positions? Free software has always had a socialist bend.
  - ceving 3y ago
    No Free Software is communism! Marx wrote in his [Critique of the Gotha Programme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programm...): [To each according to his contribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contr...). The original text is: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen! This means you contribute to Free Software as much as you can and you take from Free Software as much as you need. This is the most ethical way of human coexistence.
  - TylerLives 3y ago
    >So you don’t like their political positions? I don't like that they're pushing political positions on me that have nothing to do with free software, as defined by RMS . It's not unreasonable for them to want to exclude people who don't share their political views, but my hope is that another, more inclusive (in the real sense) group will outcompete them. There are many people who could make great contributions to free software, but who don't share your political views. If human flourishing is our goal, why should we not accept their contributions? The software speaks for itself. >Free software has always had a socialist bend. In what way?
MaxBarraclough 2y ago
Another interesting project from Drew DeVault, I wish it well. At a glance it seems much like the FSF's members-only forum, [0] except, well, not reserved for paying members. [0] https://www.fsf.org/associate/about-the-member-forum https://www.fsf.org/associate/about-the-member-forum

57 points by wicket 3y ago

Olesya000 3y ago

[dead]

mkesper 3y ago

This is welcome news. More and more projects are only (or mainly) reachable via proprietary platforms like discord.

bruce511 3y ago

I went to the site hoping to see forums discussing the commercialisation of OSS. Ya know, how to make enough money so you can afford to do this as a day job. There is a pretty quiet section on funding, pretty low down. Not much there. First forum though (organised by category) is how not to sign a CLA [1]. The thread seems determined that no contribution should be made to a project that ends up going commercial. I feel this is the subtle underlying theme in too many OSS discussions. Not just the overt "free as in freedom", but also the covert idea that "free means non commercial". I say covert, because of course the FSF manifesto specifically says you can sell free software. You're not even limited to selling your own software, you can sell -anyones- free software. Which leads a developer to a place where they like something enough to want to contribute something to the project, but at the same time add limits to the project -now- to give them fewer options in the future. If a project disappoints you, sure, fork it then. If you don't want people to profit from your free labor, then simply don't give it. And if you don't want to sign a CLA then don't sign it. (I expect this comment won't age well as the front page of the site changes :) [1] https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/anti-cla-action-what-to-do-when-you-encounter-a-cla/226/1 https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/anti-cla-action-wh...

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>The thread seems determined that no contribution should be made to a project that ends up going commercial. The thread seems to have no issues with free software being commercial, they take issues with a CLA that either allows an organization to relicense your contributions or have an exclusive ability to sell those contributions. In essence, preventing you from selling their free software while they can sell yours. Also, the conclusions of that thread largely seem to be the same ones you reached. Refuse to sign a CLA you don't agree with, fork projects egregious policies, and don't contribute to things you disagree with.
- bruce511 3y ago
  They can't prevent you from selling the software now. You can do whatever you like up to thr point they change the license, at which point you can fork it. They are preventing you from leveraging -their- (not released under free license) updates after that point.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    I'm not so sure, some of them are worded saying they own all copyright attributed to the project. Seemingly they could say anyone besides them selling it is violating their copyright and at least spawn a nightmare court case.
    - bruce511 3y ago
      If its currently under an OSS license then anyone can sell it. Of course if it's not currently under an OSS license then whatever their license days applies.
bregma 3y ago
Yes, it looks like many (most) people there don't understand copyright law or the contract law of contribution licensing. It looks like that to some, freedom means their ability to control others. They keep using the word "freedonm" but I don't think the word means what they think it means. Also, they don't mention the mandatory CLA of all FSF projects, the grandparent of all free software.
- phkahler 3y ago
  The FSF CLA is so they can relicense to a newer license if some new vulnerability is found, like why GPL3 was needed. I'm mixed on my opinion of that.
- amszmidt 3y ago
  The FSF copyright assignment isn't mandatory at all, and has never been. Many GNU projects use it, many don't. The copyright assignment also has wording to the extent that the FSF cannot just relicense things under a non-free software license. Here is some information: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2022/fall/copyright-assignment-with-the-fsf https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2022/fall/copyright-assignment-... and maybe https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers...
Macha 3y ago
> I went to the site hoping to see forums discussing the commercialisation of OSS. Ya know, how to make enough money so you can afford to do this as a day job. Why? Elastic, Redis, Mongo etc. have enough funding, employees and supporters enough to argue for themselves (and do, often and loudly), since they have the commercial revenue and favourable to themselves licenses. Why should the community be their mouthpiece?
jlokier 3y ago
I think people's stated positions on CLAs are often not clearly thought out. Mostly when I've seen people object to CLAs, it's on the grounds that it's not acceptable for any company to be able to take freely contributed code and fork it into a proprietary licenced version or change of open source license, yet... the same people encourage contributions to permissively licensed projects, such as MIT/BSD/Apache license, which explicitly grant companies the ability to do those same things! Some CLAs are almost identical to the effect of contributions being under a permissive license like MIT/BSD/Apache. So when I've seen blanket CLA objections, I usually have the impression the person hasn't really thought about what it means, and they're saying it as more of a cultural signifier than anything with a clear goal. I've encountered this while evaluating whether to release a project under the GPL, where I wanted the option to relicense it more permissively later (for everyone), and I wanted that to be clear up front with any contributors. For that, a CLA seems appropriate, but the community has evolved to find them objectionable.

TylerLives 3y ago

Okay, so they're building "safe", but "powerful" spaces with "political awareness that extends further than a simple understanding of free software liberation and includes solidarity against all struggles for liberation". I wouldn't be interested in joining even without this craziness, but there has to be a significant amount of people who read this stuff and think that it's at least a bit strange. I feel like I'm in some dystopian novel where everything has the opposite meaning of what it presents itself as. I wonder what the numbers are though. How many people are unaware of what this is? How many know what it is, but promote it for Machiavellian reasons? How many are too afraid to speak out? And most importantly, what will it take to free ourselves from these freedom fighters? A well organized minority will always rule a disorganized majority. I suppose some other group will have to organize around a different, but equally pragmatic set of principles?

dartos 3y ago
So you don’t like their political positions? Free software has always had a socialist bend.
- ceving 3y ago
  No Free Software is communism! Marx wrote in his [Critique of the Gotha Programme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programm...): [To each according to his contribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contr...). The original text is: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen! This means you contribute to Free Software as much as you can and you take from Free Software as much as you need. This is the most ethical way of human coexistence.
- TylerLives 3y ago
  >So you don’t like their political positions? I don't like that they're pushing political positions on me that have nothing to do with free software, as defined by RMS . It's not unreasonable for them to want to exclude people who don't share their political views, but my hope is that another, more inclusive (in the real sense) group will outcompete them. There are many people who could make great contributions to free software, but who don't share your political views. If human flourishing is our goal, why should we not accept their contributions? The software speaks for itself. >Free software has always had a socialist bend. In what way?

MaxBarraclough 2y ago

Another interesting project from Drew DeVault, I wish it well. At a glance it seems much like the FSF's members-only forum, [0] except, well, not reserved for paying members. [0] https://www.fsf.org/associate/about-the-member-forum https://www.fsf.org/associate/about-the-member-forum