4 ms·

>The best licenses are BSD and MIT and others of that sort; they have no naive pretense of not helping corporations: everyone can do almost whatever they want,

>The best licenses are BSD and MIT and others of that sort; they have no naive pretense of not helping corporations: everyone can do almost whatever they want, be they a large business or an individual. These licenses also don't encourage unlevel playing fields where the copyright proprietor enjoys dominance in the ecosystem. The project owner ALWAYS has dominance in the ecosystem. At least with GPL the owner is protected from someone else scooping up the project to make a closed version. How would you feel if you made an awesome open project only for someone to copy it and close the source, make minor changes, and sell it without even giving you the changes? That crap is not possible with GPL.

kazinator 2y ago
The GPL does not prevent closed versions because of Tivoization, and SaaS. For instance, Facebook is closed, in spite of running on a mountain of GPLed stuff. A locked device may prevent the user from running a kernel image that is not signed with a certain private key, even though the vendor of the device complies with the GPL and provides the matching kernel sources and the correct toolchain to reproduce the build without a signature. I would almost go as far as to say that, in this day and age, someone ripping off free source code in order to create a nice, local-only application, is practically a hero. :)
- bayindirh 2y ago
  This is why we have AGPL and GPLv3. You can TiVoize the kernel, but you have to provide the user land, at minimum. In a MIT only world, you would have no source of anything. So not only you can’t build a signature-free version of the kernel for educational purposes, you can’t even have it. This is a corporation paradise.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    Unfortunately, AGPL is a non-free license, which dictates how one may run the program when not redistributing any of its code. It's a clumsy attempt to attack a certain problem in the social computing sphere using software licensing. (You know the adage about every problem looking like a nail when the only tool you have is a hammer.) Open source licenses are characterized by the fact that you don't have to read them, let alone agree with them, merely in order to obtain the software and use it. These licenses "kick in" when you redistribute. The AGPL can only be litigated as a closed license; i.e. the argument being that if the defendant does not use the program in accordance with the license, their copy is infringing, the same like a cracked version of Photoshop. Whether you are allowed to have a copy or not depends on how you are using it. A successful AGPL litigation would mainly succeed in proving to the world that the license is nonfree, which would be evident from the arguments that would necessarily have to be used, and the reasoning necessarily expressed in the verdict.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      Like it or not, AGPL is a free software license. It only says that even if you provide the service as a SaaS, you share the code if you change it. You may dislike that particular family of licenses, but it doesn’t allow you to give false information about it. Maybe it’s not intentional, so you need to refresh your understanding. We’re humans, and our brains are not tapes. Knowledge distorts. I experience the same. GPL says something simple: “Modified the code? Share it. Oh, BTW, you can’t change the license.” The rest is legalese.
      - kazinator 2y ago
        It curtails one of the four essential freedoms that form the core of the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." If you modified the software, there are restrictions on running it; you cannot run the program as you wish, for any purpose. It looks like an open and shut case to me. The place where the AGPL comes from doesn't meet the free software definition coming from the same place. It might meet your personal definition of what is free, but that doesn't fix the above hypocrisy.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        What usage purpose is prevented in LGPL software? The whole point of GPL-type licenses may seem hypocritical to you ("boo hoo I can't use someone else's code without contributing my changes back!") but it's a well-reasoned strategy to prevent theft of code from a GPL project.
        kazinator 2y ago
        The "Lesser GPL" (preceded by "Library GPL") doesn't prevent usage, to my knowledge; it isn't hypocritical with regard to freedom zero. It allows certain combined works to be redistributed whose redistribution would be forbidden by the GPL, like proprietary, closed-source programs dynamically linked to a LGPLed library. Given a GPLed library, you can make such a combined work anyway, and use it; but you may not redistribute it. The LGPL is more free than the GPL, whereas the AGPL is nonfree. In 2016, the Cygwin project LGPLed its libraries (DLLs). That was great news; that meant I could bundle a BSD-licensed program without having to put a GPL license on the combined work as a whole and cast doubts about how it could be used (since it is a programming language implementation, needing to be redistributed by downstream developers). I immediately started working on a fork of the Cygwin DLL that would enable it to serve as a more native-looking run-time for Windows applications. I could build the program on Cygwin (and make a regular Cygwin package), but also ship exactly the same executable as a Windows application by bundling it with the modified cygwin1.dll. The LGPL is good. In computer science, there is the question whether P =? NP. Likewise, we have the question GPL =? LGPL; would the GPL's unreasonable exclusion of dynamic linking hold up in court, or would it fall, reducing GPL to LGPL? I'm of the opinion that everything library-like should use the LGPL rather than the GPL (if it must use some kind of GPL). The LGPL is what the GPL should be (if it legally isn't already anyway). The LGPL is better for promoting free software. If some developer has a choice between a proprietary library and a free one, it's counterproductive to slap a GPL on the free one to steer them to the other one. Obviously, the LGPL is used for platform libraries like Glibc, based on similar reasoning, which is probably also why Cygwin sobered up and switched to LGPL. Because banishing proprietary programs from linking to the libraries that comprise free platforms would be counterproductive. You just lose user base and mind share.
  - pabs3 2y ago
    The GPLv3 doesn't prevent what TiVo did (break proprietary software after installing modified GPLed software), and GPLv2 requires users be able to install modified GPL software, so a "TiVoised" kernel is a GPLv2 violation. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn- https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... Behan-Webster-1.pdf
- trelane 2y ago
  The GPLv3 was explicitly created to prevent tivoization.
  - pabs3 2y ago
    The GPLv2 already did that, the GPLv3 was created to prevent what TiVo did (not Tivoization), but ended up not actually doing that.
- pabs3 2y ago
  TiVo did not do what is currently referred to as Tiviosation, they just broke their proprietary software on top of Linux when you modified Linux, which you could still do. Both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 require you to be able to modify and reinstall GPL software, so devices that are locked against this are GPL violating. There is the AGPL for the SaaSS problem. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >The GPL does not prevent closed versions because of Tivoization, and SaaS. This is exactly what AGPL is for. Of course, AGPL is too overbearing for most projects, and only makes sense for SaaS. >A locked device may prevent the user from running a kernel image that is not signed with a certain private key, even though the vendor of the device complies with the GPL and provides the matching kernel sources and the correct toolchain to reproduce the build without a signature. This is a problem indeed (that most people have forgotten about, due to the shim code that people use to load other operating systems like Linux). It may become a problem in the future so we need to stay vigilant and never support products that lock the bootloader. Unfortunately most phones do that. Phones are a rats nest of proprietary software and hardware and we need more development of open technology in that space.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    The AGPL does squat all for the social problems causes by SaaSS, and only succeeds in being a technically non-free license. Nobody cares if you take some open source server software, and run version that you modified with your own cool features, without sharing the source code, and this is something you're entitled to under the FSF's Freedom Zero. Among the social harms of SaaSS, this is not on the radar; and obsession with it shows either that the FSF are out of touch, or that they think that any action is better than inaction, so that if they take a swing at the problem with the wrong tool (copyright licensing) they look like they gave it a good college try. The problem of SaaSS is people being locked to a service because that's where their data is siloed. This harm can be perpetrated with completely unmodified software you can download yourself. Running your own copy does nothing to solve the problem; your copy is not where the data is, where the other users are.

kazinator 2y ago

The GPL does not prevent closed versions because of Tivoization, and SaaS. For instance, Facebook is closed, in spite of running on a mountain of GPLed stuff. A locked device may prevent the user from running a kernel image that is not signed with a certain private key, even though the vendor of the device complies with the GPL and provides the matching kernel sources and the correct toolchain to reproduce the build without a signature. I would almost go as far as to say that, in this day and age, someone ripping off free source code in order to create a nice, local-only application, is practically a hero. :)

bayindirh 2y ago
This is why we have AGPL and GPLv3. You can TiVoize the kernel, but you have to provide the user land, at minimum. In a MIT only world, you would have no source of anything. So not only you can’t build a signature-free version of the kernel for educational purposes, you can’t even have it. This is a corporation paradise.
- kazinator 2y ago
  Unfortunately, AGPL is a non-free license, which dictates how one may run the program when not redistributing any of its code. It's a clumsy attempt to attack a certain problem in the social computing sphere using software licensing. (You know the adage about every problem looking like a nail when the only tool you have is a hammer.) Open source licenses are characterized by the fact that you don't have to read them, let alone agree with them, merely in order to obtain the software and use it. These licenses "kick in" when you redistribute. The AGPL can only be litigated as a closed license; i.e. the argument being that if the defendant does not use the program in accordance with the license, their copy is infringing, the same like a cracked version of Photoshop. Whether you are allowed to have a copy or not depends on how you are using it. A successful AGPL litigation would mainly succeed in proving to the world that the license is nonfree, which would be evident from the arguments that would necessarily have to be used, and the reasoning necessarily expressed in the verdict.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    Like it or not, AGPL is a free software license. It only says that even if you provide the service as a SaaS, you share the code if you change it. You may dislike that particular family of licenses, but it doesn’t allow you to give false information about it. Maybe it’s not intentional, so you need to refresh your understanding. We’re humans, and our brains are not tapes. Knowledge distorts. I experience the same. GPL says something simple: “Modified the code? Share it. Oh, BTW, you can’t change the license.” The rest is legalese.
    - kazinator 2y ago
      It curtails one of the four essential freedoms that form the core of the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." If you modified the software, there are restrictions on running it; you cannot run the program as you wish, for any purpose. It looks like an open and shut case to me. The place where the AGPL comes from doesn't meet the free software definition coming from the same place. It might meet your personal definition of what is free, but that doesn't fix the above hypocrisy.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        What usage purpose is prevented in LGPL software? The whole point of GPL-type licenses may seem hypocritical to you ("boo hoo I can't use someone else's code without contributing my changes back!") but it's a well-reasoned strategy to prevent theft of code from a GPL project.
        kazinator 2y ago
        The "Lesser GPL" (preceded by "Library GPL") doesn't prevent usage, to my knowledge; it isn't hypocritical with regard to freedom zero. It allows certain combined works to be redistributed whose redistribution would be forbidden by the GPL, like proprietary, closed-source programs dynamically linked to a LGPLed library. Given a GPLed library, you can make such a combined work anyway, and use it; but you may not redistribute it. The LGPL is more free than the GPL, whereas the AGPL is nonfree. In 2016, the Cygwin project LGPLed its libraries (DLLs). That was great news; that meant I could bundle a BSD-licensed program without having to put a GPL license on the combined work as a whole and cast doubts about how it could be used (since it is a programming language implementation, needing to be redistributed by downstream developers). I immediately started working on a fork of the Cygwin DLL that would enable it to serve as a more native-looking run-time for Windows applications. I could build the program on Cygwin (and make a regular Cygwin package), but also ship exactly the same executable as a Windows application by bundling it with the modified cygwin1.dll. The LGPL is good. In computer science, there is the question whether P =? NP. Likewise, we have the question GPL =? LGPL; would the GPL's unreasonable exclusion of dynamic linking hold up in court, or would it fall, reducing GPL to LGPL? I'm of the opinion that everything library-like should use the LGPL rather than the GPL (if it must use some kind of GPL). The LGPL is what the GPL should be (if it legally isn't already anyway). The LGPL is better for promoting free software. If some developer has a choice between a proprietary library and a free one, it's counterproductive to slap a GPL on the free one to steer them to the other one. Obviously, the LGPL is used for platform libraries like Glibc, based on similar reasoning, which is probably also why Cygwin sobered up and switched to LGPL. Because banishing proprietary programs from linking to the libraries that comprise free platforms would be counterproductive. You just lose user base and mind share.
- pabs3 2y ago
  The GPLv3 doesn't prevent what TiVo did (break proprietary software after installing modified GPLed software), and GPLv2 requires users be able to install modified GPL software, so a "TiVoised" kernel is a GPLv2 violation. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn- https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... Behan-Webster-1.pdf
trelane 2y ago
The GPLv3 was explicitly created to prevent tivoization.
- pabs3 2y ago
  The GPLv2 already did that, the GPLv3 was created to prevent what TiVo did (not Tivoization), but ended up not actually doing that.
pabs3 2y ago
TiVo did not do what is currently referred to as Tiviosation, they just broke their proprietary software on top of Linux when you modified Linux, which you could still do. Both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 require you to be able to modify and reinstall GPL software, so devices that are locked against this are GPL violating. There is the AGPL for the SaaSS problem. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
wakawaka28 2y ago
>The GPL does not prevent closed versions because of Tivoization, and SaaS. This is exactly what AGPL is for. Of course, AGPL is too overbearing for most projects, and only makes sense for SaaS. >A locked device may prevent the user from running a kernel image that is not signed with a certain private key, even though the vendor of the device complies with the GPL and provides the matching kernel sources and the correct toolchain to reproduce the build without a signature. This is a problem indeed (that most people have forgotten about, due to the shim code that people use to load other operating systems like Linux). It may become a problem in the future so we need to stay vigilant and never support products that lock the bootloader. Unfortunately most phones do that. Phones are a rats nest of proprietary software and hardware and we need more development of open technology in that space.
- kazinator 2y ago
  The AGPL does squat all for the social problems causes by SaaSS, and only succeeds in being a technically non-free license. Nobody cares if you take some open source server software, and run version that you modified with your own cool features, without sharing the source code, and this is something you're entitled to under the FSF's Freedom Zero. Among the social harms of SaaSS, this is not on the radar; and obsession with it shows either that the FSF are out of touch, or that they think that any action is better than inaction, so that if they take a swing at the problem with the wrong tool (copyright licensing) they look like they gave it a good college try. The problem of SaaSS is people being locked to a service because that's where their data is siloed. This harm can be perpetrated with completely unmodified software you can download yourself. Running your own copy does nothing to solve the problem; your copy is not where the data is, where the other users are.