3 ms·

Futo, Please don't attempt to create your own Open Source Definition

3 points by pabs3 2y ago

KilgoretheTrout 2y ago
I like the stuff that they're making but I am frustrated. How anytime there's any criticism, there's a ton of fans of Louis hat just respond with so much toxicity. He's just an employee in his project, he's not actually in charge of anything in terms of actually owning it. He's being paid by a billionaire and he constantly tells people that they should question everyone and everything. And I think he's great. But anytime someone questions anything, his fans become so protective. As if this is his project and he owns it. Even if it was, it would go against the ethos of him telling you not to trust him. They just had a live stream where they supposedly were answering. Really hard questions but 95% of the comments were just people fanboying out and talking about how much they love him. That's not really his fault, But it doesn't foster healthy conversation. Someone had posted a message on the subreddit for gray j complaining about merchandise ads and they were met with so much hostility that I found out a little frustrating.
immibis 2y ago
The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the words "open source", nor does the FSF have one on "free software". And the OSI's and the FSF's definitions do have problems, and we should not let ourselves be conditioned to perpetuate them "just because that's how it is" any more than we should let ourselves be conditioned to any other part of the societal status quo. Especially shortly after the OSI declared the SSPL non-open just because the OSI is made up of cloud companies and the SSPL isn't good for cloud companies, even though it meets their definition. The assumption that open source software must be free for unlimited commercial use is a bad one. Would you ever say that a soup kitchen doesn't really give free soup, if Amazon isn't allowed to come and take the whole vat of soup to feed its worker droids? "Free" always comes with abuse limits... except in FOSS, apparently. Amazon copying and cloudifying the software doesn't deprive the creator of the software, like it would if it was soup, but it still comes with a host of other negative externalities we're experiencing today. Is free software the end, or is the means to some kind of utopic vision? Should software be free because software should be free, or should it be free because that makes the world better? Apart from license compatibility (which is a valid concern) I don't see what problem is created by putting "no advertisements" in the license.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eesmith 2y ago
  The author didn't like how the alternative definition was highly likely to cause misapprehension by likely user audience, who generally use a different interpretation. That's nothing to do with a monopoly. I completely agree with your post-SSPL view of the OSI. Just because all of the big cloud providers are unethical does not give them an escape card. Still, that has no bearing on this essay, which are specific clauses in the FUTO definition. Saying that I cannot change parts of the code is anathema to the underlying concepts behind all generally accepted uses of FLOSS, including Debian's. On a practical side, what happens if/when FUTO-the-organization no longer exists? Or if a future FUTO license change in a way that people don't like? (The FSF, as an example, has legal agreements with its contributors that any future license changes will only be within a certain framework of free software.) On a legal side, what is "advertisement"? If the credits say "Portions copyright eesmith. Contact eesmith@example.com for paid support and consulting.", that's clearly advertising, right? Why should that be prohibited? Is "CV at https://example.com/~eesmith/ https://example.com/~eesmith/" also advertising? Similarly, what is "malware"? The recent Microsoft Recall debacle tells me the difference between "malware" and "not malware" is that if somewhere, deep inside the terms of service that few read but everyone agrees to, there is a description of the functionality, then it's not malware. As part of the utopic vision, I'm one of the supporters of universal basic income. Amazing's copying and cloudifying should lead to taxes which pay stoners to sit on the beach staring at the waves, coders to sit behind screens writing FOSS, and parents to have extra time and security with their kids. I simply don't think it can be solved through copyright law. Licensing is a very small lever.
  - immibis 2y ago
    In my reading, there are mostly only restrictions on the changes you can make: you can't add advertisements, and you can't add payment links to anyone except Futo. However you also can't remove the payment links to Futo. THAT restriction isn't okay by any definition of free or open. They could try to define a bright line for what counts as advertisement or a payment link, but bright line definitions are vulnerable to being gamed. Remember Tivoization? The GPL said we had to let you modify the software, but not INSTALL the modified software! Actually most contracts and licenses involve vague terms. If the license says N, then you want to stay below N-5 to make sure they have no excuse to sue you, and they don't want to waste money suing you unless you're at N+5 to be sure they'll win. The exact number 5 can vary. Some unscrupulous actors will actually cross over the line to test their luck / your boundaries.
6510 2y ago
People can modify the meaning of terms or gradually entirely change them. Language is a work in progress. If the new meaning waters the concept down to the point of uselessness is not progress. What do hippies stand for nowadays? Rolling in mud naked? What is anarchy? We could (for laughs) argue the right to repair means there are screws and you can open up a device. That means you can modify it yourself!

3 points by pabs3 2y ago

I like the stuff that they're making but I am frustrated. How anytime there's any criticism, there's a ton of fans of Louis hat just respond with so much toxicity. He's just an employee in his project, he's not actually in charge of anything in terms of actually owning it. He's being paid by a billionaire and he constantly tells people that they should question everyone and everything. And I think he's great. But anytime someone questions anything, his fans become so protective. As if this is his project and he owns it. Even if it was, it would go against the ethos of him telling you not to trust him. They just had a live stream where they supposedly were answering. Really hard questions but 95% of the comments were just people fanboying out and talking about how much they love him. That's not really his fault, But it doesn't foster healthy conversation. Someone had posted a message on the subreddit for gray j complaining about merchandise ads and they were met with so much hostility that I found out a little frustrating.

immibis 2y ago

The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the words "open source", nor does the FSF have one on "free software". And the OSI's and the FSF's definitions do have problems, and we should not let ourselves be conditioned to perpetuate them "just because that's how it is" any more than we should let ourselves be conditioned to any other part of the societal status quo. Especially shortly after the OSI declared the SSPL non-open just because the OSI is made up of cloud companies and the SSPL isn't good for cloud companies, even though it meets their definition. The assumption that open source software must be free for unlimited commercial use is a bad one. Would you ever say that a soup kitchen doesn't really give free soup, if Amazon isn't allowed to come and take the whole vat of soup to feed its worker droids? "Free" always comes with abuse limits... except in FOSS, apparently. Amazon copying and cloudifying the software doesn't deprive the creator of the software, like it would if it was soup, but it still comes with a host of other negative externalities we're experiencing today. Is free software the end, or is the means to some kind of utopic vision? Should software be free because software should be free, or should it be free because that makes the world better? Apart from license compatibility (which is a valid concern) I don't see what problem is created by putting "no advertisements" in the license.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eesmith 2y ago
The author didn't like how the alternative definition was highly likely to cause misapprehension by likely user audience, who generally use a different interpretation. That's nothing to do with a monopoly. I completely agree with your post-SSPL view of the OSI. Just because all of the big cloud providers are unethical does not give them an escape card. Still, that has no bearing on this essay, which are specific clauses in the FUTO definition. Saying that I cannot change parts of the code is anathema to the underlying concepts behind all generally accepted uses of FLOSS, including Debian's. On a practical side, what happens if/when FUTO-the-organization no longer exists? Or if a future FUTO license change in a way that people don't like? (The FSF, as an example, has legal agreements with its contributors that any future license changes will only be within a certain framework of free software.) On a legal side, what is "advertisement"? If the credits say "Portions copyright eesmith. Contact eesmith@example.com for paid support and consulting.", that's clearly advertising, right? Why should that be prohibited? Is "CV at https://example.com/~eesmith/ https://example.com/~eesmith/" also advertising? Similarly, what is "malware"? The recent Microsoft Recall debacle tells me the difference between "malware" and "not malware" is that if somewhere, deep inside the terms of service that few read but everyone agrees to, there is a description of the functionality, then it's not malware. As part of the utopic vision, I'm one of the supporters of universal basic income. Amazing's copying and cloudifying should lead to taxes which pay stoners to sit on the beach staring at the waves, coders to sit behind screens writing FOSS, and parents to have extra time and security with their kids. I simply don't think it can be solved through copyright law. Licensing is a very small lever.
- immibis 2y ago
  In my reading, there are mostly only restrictions on the changes you can make: you can't add advertisements, and you can't add payment links to anyone except Futo. However you also can't remove the payment links to Futo. THAT restriction isn't okay by any definition of free or open. They could try to define a bright line for what counts as advertisement or a payment link, but bright line definitions are vulnerable to being gamed. Remember Tivoization? The GPL said we had to let you modify the software, but not INSTALL the modified software! Actually most contracts and licenses involve vague terms. If the license says N, then you want to stay below N-5 to make sure they have no excuse to sue you, and they don't want to waste money suing you unless you're at N+5 to be sure they'll win. The exact number 5 can vary. Some unscrupulous actors will actually cross over the line to test their luck / your boundaries.

6510 2y ago

People can modify the meaning of terms or gradually entirely change them. Language is a work in progress. If the new meaning waters the concept down to the point of uselessness is not progress. What do hippies stand for nowadays? Rolling in mud naked? What is anarchy? We could (for laughs) argue the right to repair means there are screws and you can open up a device. That means you can modify it yourself!