4 ms·

> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal u

by bsnnkv 1y ago

> The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals

pasc1878 1y ago
As all is based on copyright you can't distinguish between individuals and organisations as the law does not.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  I guess I must have imagined all the licenses which treat individual and corporate use as distinct. Edit: I'll simplify the above to "the statement in the parent comment is demonstrably not true"
  - tokai 1y ago
    "Don't be snarky"
- rcxdude 1y ago
  You can write whatever you want in a license, though. I don't see any issue with writing a license which says 'this may only be used by an individual, not an organisation', though of course there are likely to be significant grey areas which would need to be resolved in court if it came to that.
- pasc1878 1y ago
  What I mean is that the copyuright holder can be an individual or a company - no comment on users.
lolinder 1y ago
I don't think you need to distinguish individuals from corporations in order to advance human freedom. You can make the licenses such that any corporation that uses them to provide services to users must provide the users with required freedoms. If businesses can make money while respecting those terms, all the better! The same goes for the internal use loophole: the corporation should be required to provide its internal users with certain freedoms, and if they do that then mission accomplished.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  "The purpose of a system is what it does"
  - lolinder 1y ago
    And the GPLs have done an extremely good job of advancing user freedom, with a few very small asterisks.
    - bsnnkv 1y ago
      > sucked up in corporate interests
      - lolinder 1y ago
        Yes, that's an out of context quote from my earlier comment. I'm not sure what it means as a response to me now, though.
tokai 1y ago
It would have made for a better discussion if you had stated openly that you are into some fringe self-made anti-org software license. That would have made it clear what you actually want to discuss.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
pabs3 1y ago
Is there a license that does address that loophole?
- amszmidt 1y ago
  Such a license would be a non-free software / not open source license.
- richardfontana 1y ago
  Maybe the Apple Public Source License v1? Haven't looked at it in a long time.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  There are many - but FSF, OSI and their proponents typically advocate quite strongly against their use.
  - pabs3 1y ago
    Which ones?
nativeit 1y ago
A few things on the "internal use loophole"--first, I'm not sure a semantic debate over the meaning of "distribution" functions as a loophole. Courts are quite capable and ready to consider questions such as these, so I'm not sure it really matters very much. Outside of the academic exercises playing out like this one, actual fact and circumstance relevant to any given case play critically into its ultimate legal determination(s), and 8-12 person juries and/or appeals courts exist to handle things otherwise. All that said, I'm not sure what your calling this out was meant to imply in the context of the person you quoted?
pabs3 1y ago
I note the GPL itself does not differentiate between internal and external use, the "internal use" language comes only from the FSF GPL FAQ. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo... So probably a court or a different upstream could interpret distribution as including distribution between employees.

by bsnnkv 1y ago

pasc1878 1y ago

As all is based on copyright you can't distinguish between individuals and organisations as the law does not.

bsnnkv 1y ago
I guess I must have imagined all the licenses which treat individual and corporate use as distinct. Edit: I'll simplify the above to "the statement in the parent comment is demonstrably not true"
- tokai 1y ago
  "Don't be snarky"
rcxdude 1y ago
You can write whatever you want in a license, though. I don't see any issue with writing a license which says 'this may only be used by an individual, not an organisation', though of course there are likely to be significant grey areas which would need to be resolved in court if it came to that.
pasc1878 1y ago
What I mean is that the copyuright holder can be an individual or a company - no comment on users.

lolinder 1y ago

I don't think you need to distinguish individuals from corporations in order to advance human freedom. You can make the licenses such that any corporation that uses them to provide services to users must provide the users with required freedoms. If businesses can make money while respecting those terms, all the better! The same goes for the internal use loophole: the corporation should be required to provide its internal users with certain freedoms, and if they do that then mission accomplished.

bsnnkv 1y ago
"The purpose of a system is what it does"
- lolinder 1y ago
  And the GPLs have done an extremely good job of advancing user freedom, with a few very small asterisks.
  - bsnnkv 1y ago
    > sucked up in corporate interests
    - lolinder 1y ago
      Yes, that's an out of context quote from my earlier comment. I'm not sure what it means as a response to me now, though.

tokai 1y ago

It would have made for a better discussion if you had stated openly that you are into some fringe self-made anti-org software license. That would have made it clear what you actually want to discuss.

bsnnkv 1y ago
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pabs3 1y ago

Is there a license that does address that loophole?

amszmidt 1y ago
Such a license would be a non-free software / not open source license.
richardfontana 1y ago
Maybe the Apple Public Source License v1? Haven't looked at it in a long time.
bsnnkv 1y ago
There are many - but FSF, OSI and their proponents typically advocate quite strongly against their use.
- pabs3 1y ago
  Which ones?

nativeit 1y ago

A few things on the "internal use loophole"--first, I'm not sure a semantic debate over the meaning of "distribution" functions as a loophole. Courts are quite capable and ready to consider questions such as these, so I'm not sure it really matters very much. Outside of the academic exercises playing out like this one, actual fact and circumstance relevant to any given case play critically into its ultimate legal determination(s), and 8-12 person juries and/or appeals courts exist to handle things otherwise. All that said, I'm not sure what your calling this out was meant to imply in the context of the person you quoted?

pabs3 1y ago

I note the GPL itself does not differentiate between internal and external use, the "internal use" language comes only from the FSF GPL FAQ. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo... So probably a court or a different upstream could interpret distribution as including distribution between employees.