3 ms·

I believe you are mixing up many things. > He does emphasise source code This is not relevant to the free software movement vs the open source movement. > it

by jraph 2y ago

I believe you are mixing up many things. > He does emphasise source code This is not relevant to the free software movement vs the open source movement. > it possible to have freedom without open source No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. > it's called public domain software. Public domain software is necessarily¹ open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. 1 ("well, actually"): many countries don't allow you to willingly put something into the public domain yourself, so in those country, it is not clear you have any right to use software someone put in the public domain because it's not in public domain in those country. You'd need an explicit license like CC0 to do this.

userbinator 2y ago
No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. Wrong. Public domain software is necessarily open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. Wrong. This is precisely the idiotic focus on source code I'm talking about. Decompilers are even better now than they were in the 80s when people, even Stallman himself admits, would just disassemble and then modify software that way. As long as you have the power to change the bytes that make up the software, and doing that is legal, that should be enough to qualify as free software. How it was made doesn't matter one bit (pun intended).
- jraph 2y ago
  You are conflating "open source" and "source available". You have a point with having the right to modify a program in the public domain through a decompilation of its machine code. But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. Sharing the source code is the minimum, we can't stoop so low as to consider a blob free software or open source just because you have the right to modify it. It's not that idiotic to put an emphasis on the source code. What are you trying to defend?
  - userbinator 2y ago
    What do you mean "stoop so low"? That's how it's always been in every other industry --- people can and do modify and fix things by learning how they work, without any form of assistance from the original manufacturer. I don't need to have the original design documentation to make or modify a new part for my car, boat, washing machine, HVAC system, etc. Why should software be any different? But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. It already is practical. As I mentioned, decompilers are only getting better and what we have now is far better than in the early days when people did "study and modify" just fine. I could also argue that a lot of current free software is not practical to "study and modify" even with the source code. Instead, the emphasis on source code has created a sort of learned helplessness (see above) that is definitely an impediment to true freedom. Companies have instead used "open source" as a form of virtue-signaling while adapting other user-hostile "security" features that make it so users can see the source and try to contribute to it (with their contributions only accepted if they toe the line) but can't actually make use of those changes themselves. Android, Firefox, and some other Google projects come to mind.
    - tgma 2y ago
      Well, one reason the analogy is bad is the HVAC industry does not have the luxury of copyright in the first place. They have to rely on patents and trade secrets. The whole GPL concept is hinged on and is a hack on copyright and would be rendered moot absent copyright. As a practical matter, it's hard to come by software that comes as a freely licensed binary but lacks source code. I'm blanking out on coming up with even a single example. Re the ability of "study and modify" it does not have to be universal obviously. If a subset of community can do so the rest can benefit by their improvements passively, asking their help or contracting them.

by jraph 2y ago

userbinator 2y ago

No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. Wrong. Public domain software is necessarily open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. Wrong. This is precisely the idiotic focus on source code I'm talking about. Decompilers are even better now than they were in the 80s when people, even Stallman himself admits, would just disassemble and then modify software that way. As long as you have the power to change the bytes that make up the software, and doing that is legal, that should be enough to qualify as free software. How it was made doesn't matter one bit (pun intended).

jraph 2y ago
You are conflating "open source" and "source available". You have a point with having the right to modify a program in the public domain through a decompilation of its machine code. But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. Sharing the source code is the minimum, we can't stoop so low as to consider a blob free software or open source just because you have the right to modify it. It's not that idiotic to put an emphasis on the source code. What are you trying to defend?
- userbinator 2y ago
  What do you mean "stoop so low"? That's how it's always been in every other industry --- people can and do modify and fix things by learning how they work, without any form of assistance from the original manufacturer. I don't need to have the original design documentation to make or modify a new part for my car, boat, washing machine, HVAC system, etc. Why should software be any different? But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. It already is practical. As I mentioned, decompilers are only getting better and what we have now is far better than in the early days when people did "study and modify" just fine. I could also argue that a lot of current free software is not practical to "study and modify" even with the source code. Instead, the emphasis on source code has created a sort of learned helplessness (see above) that is definitely an impediment to true freedom. Companies have instead used "open source" as a form of virtue-signaling while adapting other user-hostile "security" features that make it so users can see the source and try to contribute to it (with their contributions only accepted if they toe the line) but can't actually make use of those changes themselves. Android, Firefox, and some other Google projects come to mind.
  - tgma 2y ago
    Well, one reason the analogy is bad is the HVAC industry does not have the luxury of copyright in the first place. They have to rely on patents and trade secrets. The whole GPL concept is hinged on and is a hack on copyright and would be rendered moot absent copyright. As a practical matter, it's hard to come by software that comes as a freely licensed binary but lacks source code. I'm blanking out on coming up with even a single example. Re the ability of "study and modify" it does not have to be universal obviously. If a subset of community can do so the rest can benefit by their improvements passively, asking their help or contracting them.