7 ms·

This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from

by pyeri 11mo ago

This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. Like most coders, I also prefer the permissive MIT/Apache/BSD licensing for most software projects but incidents like these make me question the direction we are heading towards. They raise fundamental questions about freedom itself - looking at the broader picture, is having a restrictive kind of freedom (GPL) often more beneficial than having full permissive freedom (MIT/Apache)?

survirtual 11mo ago
[flagged]
- sham1 11mo ago
  Yeah, this is pretty much the rationale behind the Paradox of Tolerance, which you alluded to. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance without eventually just becoming intolerant, this clearly demonstrates that the same is true for Free Software. If we tolerate the use of Free Software for the use of the non-free software, eventually one loses the freedom in Free Software. It's of course not a perfect analogy since the original Free Software still exists, but since in practice the dependency was from free towards non-free, like in this instance, it still works. Google and its anti-freedom practices are still in effective control of the Android ecosystem even though it's still technically free by way of AOSP. And just as how some people argue that intolerance of the intolerant by a tolerant society is bad, so do some people argue that things like the GPL is bad because it prevents downstream modifications etc. going from free to non-free. Maybe this will help re-evaluate the culture around this stuff.
  - davemp 11mo ago
    > Paradox of Tolerance, which you alluded to. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance without eventually just becoming intolerant I’ve always thought this was hand wavy nonsense. Tolerance and tolerating is so ill defined in these discussions that they end up pointless. I’m also not sure game theory supports that intolerance wins out if you view it as repeated instances of the prisoner’s dilemma.
- Gud 11mo ago
  Just because we “allow nazis” doesn’t mean society will turn into an authoritarian dictatorship. People are not stupid.
  - mlnj 11mo ago
    Hmmm. The rise of nazis to power from time to time is evidence to the contrary. Most people, might not be 'stupid'; but complacency in the population is enough to drop the guard down.
    - Gud 11mo ago
      I am not arguing for complacency. I am arguing that authoritarian ideologies are won over with arguments, not by outlawing them.
      - mlnj 11mo ago
        You are arguing as if the two sides are acting in good faith. Authoritarianism almost always isn't. Greed and corruption is is inherently tipping the scales unfairly against the fair system to be imbalanced against the good actor. You can see it again and again in the success of voter suppression acts and the deceitful tactics played by authoritarians. Arguments only work when both actors respect good arguments.
      - xeyownt 11mo ago
        It's not about outlawing them, it's about not giving them a platform allowing them to rise, like the current major media platforms are doing right now. Social media should be held responsible of the content they publish.
      - MSFT_Edging 11mo ago
        “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” - Jean-Paul Sartre
- throwaway75 11mo ago
  > We accept everyone who accepts everyone. If we were to accept and enforce this rule, billions of followers of some major religions would not be eligible to be part of a free and open society.
  - LinXitoW 11mo ago
    "Tolerate" might be a better word to use for their analogy. I can hate you and all you stand for, but I can still tolerate you. Meaning, I let you be and don't try to curtail your actions according to my personal beliefs.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - kubanczyk 11mo ago
      Nah. The error is the royal "we". We tolerate <subjective judgement>, We enforce <subjective judgement>. And above all, We require everyone to be nice and cultured. The actual power-wielder who regulates these things is a government (or rather its justice system), a warlord, nowadays maybe an AGI, but definitely not society and not "We, users of orange social media". These mechanisms work for thousands of years, paradoxes gonna paradox.
  - spiffyk 11mo ago
    Good.
  - Brendinooo 11mo ago
    What you quoted is just the person restating the paradox of tolerance. It's totally nonsensical once you get past "one-dimensonal evil" cases (or perhaps cases like software, a category is more narrowly and cleanly delineated). He's right that freedom requires restriction. The problem with the paradox of tolerance is that it masquerades as a meaningful principle while leaving the actual restrictions unnamed. P.S. it also is worth noting that, to the extent that the GPL works, it's precisely because it doesn't rely on vague principles. It's specific about what's restricted, when, and how.
- Bewelge 11mo ago
  Can you explain how you mean this in the context of software? What you describe sounds like the paradox of intolerance but I fail to see how that can be applied to free software. Freedom in general: You can't have absolute freedom because that includes the freedom to take the freedom from others. In software: You can't have absolutely free software because ... ? I fail to see how free software might infringe on the freedom of others.
  - survirtual 11mo ago
    Sure. If you MIT license a critical piece of software instead of GPL it, what happens is someone will have a business idea on top of it. They implement their idea, then close source the new implementation. They then bring in revenue. That revenue then enables them to amplify and accelerate their modifications. Eventually, they start patenting and commodifying their changes. More resources accelerate their closed-source implementation that quickly obsoletes the open source implementation. Now, people are forced to use the closed source implementation or be left behind with an inferior tech. Because these things tend to optimize or otherwise accelerate them, they have no choice but to pay or trust this closed source implementation, and that creates a feedback loop. They get more resources, build more closed source stuff, and rarely contribute back to the open backbone that enabled them to begin with. You an extrapolate the pattern from here.
- rewgs 11mo ago
  I hate that you’re being downvoted. You are absolutely right here.
  - survirtual 11mo ago
    Being right does not equate to being popular. If popular was also right, we would be living in a golden age. I've been ridiculed all my life for speaking my truth, even when it is difficult or harmful to me. It's okay.
fauigerzigerk 11mo ago
But Linux is GPL. That didn't stop Google from using it as a basis for something that is not GPL and in fact not even open source (Google Play Services). What leverage does a community of engineers have to insist on anything? Android could be entirely closed source. So could Chrome. It would be naive to assume that the power dynamics in our society can be fundamentally altered by a 10 line software license.
- seba_dos1 11mo ago
  Not that it would help in this particular scenario, but Linux did not embrace the GPL development from about 20 years ago.
- pyeri 11mo ago
  The Linux kernel is a separate system layer here, it's the AOSP parts like the Dalvik Runtime (equivalent of JRE) and components built on top of it (such as Play Store) which are being subject to permissive licensing abuse. If AOSP itself was GPL licensed, it'd have been difficult for Google to create something closed like Play Store as it'd have been considered derivative work. You're right that broadly speaking, there is very little that could be done to stop this but having a culture of "everything GPL" in an organization definitely helps. For example, Sun was farsighted enough, though they couldn't stop Oracle from acquiring MySql, Oracle was still forced to keep MySql under GPL and they were able to salvage MariaDB too. Similar was the case with Java. Oracle tried everything in its power to control its use and direction including legal means, it's only thanks to GPL that alternative implementations like OpenJDK and Amazon Corretto still exist. We can't even imagine the state of these software today if Sun hadn't licensed them under GPL originally but used some other permissive license instead!
  - cachius 11mo ago
    Dalvik was used up until Android 4.4. Since Android 5 Lollipop the Java Runtime Environment is called the 'Android Runtime' or just ART. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Runtime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Runtime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software)
VagabundoP 11mo ago
Would that have really stoped google having its own cloud/app layer on top of the base system? OEM could still lock the bootloaders. Unless, maybe the EU, enforce a right to repair and tinker we'll be at the mercy of these companies with their walled gardens.
Jedd 11mo ago
> ... uncompromised open source (Stallmanist ... Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.
sjamaan 11mo ago
GPL doesn't help you one bit in this particular situation, because "regular users" would still be using the locked-down stock Android that came with their device. So they still can't install your app. Anyone who is already running a rooted Android or otherwise customized OS isn't affected by this, only developers who want to distribute their app to users.
- vbezhenar 11mo ago
  AFAIK GPLv3 requires to allow user to run modified software (so essentially device must be unlockable). Android is not GPLv3, unfortunately.
  - botanical76 11mo ago
    Many Android devices are unlockable, you can run your own software, and yet we still have a problem. This problem exists irrespective of what you can technically do with the hardware due to the vote by corporations to favour device "security" over user freedom. A phone is useless to most people without the apps they depend on.
    - immibis 11mo ago
      I literally can't unlock my device (Xiaomi) because there's no way to, despite that it's apparently the law in Germany that GPLv2 software cannot be Tivoized because "corresponding source" was interpreted to include everything you need to install modified software on the device. (AVM vs I don't remember, regarding fritz!box home routers)
- Zambyte 11mo ago
  I can't root or otherwise customize my OS on my device because Linux is not GPLv3.
  - fluidcruft 11mo ago
    Correct. And the reason GPLv3 exists is because TiVo did the same thing eons ago.
hyghjiyhu 11mo ago
I have a "weakly held strong opinion" on this subject. I think open source has been a disaster for the state of software for normal people. On the one hand exploited developers making peanuts or nothing for their hard work. On the other hand exploited users losing control of their devices and social networks. The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is rotten. Edit: then again maybe it's unfair of me to blame the decline in paid for software on open source.
- jaapz 11mo ago
  Sounds a bit like victim blaming, how is it the fault of open source software that corporations are exploiting them?
  - kaoD 11mo ago
    Because they went "open source" and not "free software" to appease corporations. The trap was there all along and developers fell right into it.
- MarsIronPI 11mo ago
  > The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other. Charging for free and open-source software is not only possible, but encouraged Stallman himself.
  - dns_snek 11mo ago
    Yes but how do you build a consumer software business on top of a licensing scheme that legally allows anyone to share their copy of the software with anyone else, and allows other businesses to resell your software at half the price?
    - pyeri 11mo ago
GaryBluto 11mo ago
> half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. I'd argue what you describe as "half-hearted" is actually more true to open source and libre software than restrictive licensing.
giancarlostoro 11mo ago
Google is the modern Microsoft spiritual successor to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Look at all the people who use gmail, youtube, etc all from a web app that Google wholly controls.
treyd 11mo ago
> This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. And we would have been in a better position to lobby for this if unions were widespread in the tech industry, which they are not.

by pyeri 11mo ago

survirtual 11mo ago

[flagged]

sham1 11mo ago
Yeah, this is pretty much the rationale behind the Paradox of Tolerance, which you alluded to. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance without eventually just becoming intolerant, this clearly demonstrates that the same is true for Free Software. If we tolerate the use of Free Software for the use of the non-free software, eventually one loses the freedom in Free Software. It's of course not a perfect analogy since the original Free Software still exists, but since in practice the dependency was from free towards non-free, like in this instance, it still works. Google and its anti-freedom practices are still in effective control of the Android ecosystem even though it's still technically free by way of AOSP. And just as how some people argue that intolerance of the intolerant by a tolerant society is bad, so do some people argue that things like the GPL is bad because it prevents downstream modifications etc. going from free to non-free. Maybe this will help re-evaluate the culture around this stuff.
- davemp 11mo ago
  > Paradox of Tolerance, which you alluded to. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance without eventually just becoming intolerant I’ve always thought this was hand wavy nonsense. Tolerance and tolerating is so ill defined in these discussions that they end up pointless. I’m also not sure game theory supports that intolerance wins out if you view it as repeated instances of the prisoner’s dilemma.
Gud 11mo ago
Just because we “allow nazis” doesn’t mean society will turn into an authoritarian dictatorship. People are not stupid.
- mlnj 11mo ago
  Hmmm. The rise of nazis to power from time to time is evidence to the contrary. Most people, might not be 'stupid'; but complacency in the population is enough to drop the guard down.
  - Gud 11mo ago
    I am not arguing for complacency. I am arguing that authoritarian ideologies are won over with arguments, not by outlawing them.
    - mlnj 11mo ago
      You are arguing as if the two sides are acting in good faith. Authoritarianism almost always isn't. Greed and corruption is is inherently tipping the scales unfairly against the fair system to be imbalanced against the good actor. You can see it again and again in the success of voter suppression acts and the deceitful tactics played by authoritarians. Arguments only work when both actors respect good arguments.
    - xeyownt 11mo ago
      It's not about outlawing them, it's about not giving them a platform allowing them to rise, like the current major media platforms are doing right now. Social media should be held responsible of the content they publish.
    - MSFT_Edging 11mo ago
      “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” - Jean-Paul Sartre
throwaway75 11mo ago
> We accept everyone who accepts everyone. If we were to accept and enforce this rule, billions of followers of some major religions would not be eligible to be part of a free and open society.
- LinXitoW 11mo ago
  "Tolerate" might be a better word to use for their analogy. I can hate you and all you stand for, but I can still tolerate you. Meaning, I let you be and don't try to curtail your actions according to my personal beliefs.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - kubanczyk 11mo ago
    Nah. The error is the royal "we". We tolerate <subjective judgement>, We enforce <subjective judgement>. And above all, We require everyone to be nice and cultured. The actual power-wielder who regulates these things is a government (or rather its justice system), a warlord, nowadays maybe an AGI, but definitely not society and not "We, users of orange social media". These mechanisms work for thousands of years, paradoxes gonna paradox.
- spiffyk 11mo ago
  Good.
- Brendinooo 11mo ago
  What you quoted is just the person restating the paradox of tolerance. It's totally nonsensical once you get past "one-dimensonal evil" cases (or perhaps cases like software, a category is more narrowly and cleanly delineated). He's right that freedom requires restriction. The problem with the paradox of tolerance is that it masquerades as a meaningful principle while leaving the actual restrictions unnamed. P.S. it also is worth noting that, to the extent that the GPL works, it's precisely because it doesn't rely on vague principles. It's specific about what's restricted, when, and how.
Bewelge 11mo ago
Can you explain how you mean this in the context of software? What you describe sounds like the paradox of intolerance but I fail to see how that can be applied to free software. Freedom in general: You can't have absolute freedom because that includes the freedom to take the freedom from others. In software: You can't have absolutely free software because ... ? I fail to see how free software might infringe on the freedom of others.
- survirtual 11mo ago
  Sure. If you MIT license a critical piece of software instead of GPL it, what happens is someone will have a business idea on top of it. They implement their idea, then close source the new implementation. They then bring in revenue. That revenue then enables them to amplify and accelerate their modifications. Eventually, they start patenting and commodifying their changes. More resources accelerate their closed-source implementation that quickly obsoletes the open source implementation. Now, people are forced to use the closed source implementation or be left behind with an inferior tech. Because these things tend to optimize or otherwise accelerate them, they have no choice but to pay or trust this closed source implementation, and that creates a feedback loop. They get more resources, build more closed source stuff, and rarely contribute back to the open backbone that enabled them to begin with. You an extrapolate the pattern from here.
rewgs 11mo ago
I hate that you’re being downvoted. You are absolutely right here.
- survirtual 11mo ago
  Being right does not equate to being popular. If popular was also right, we would be living in a golden age. I've been ridiculed all my life for speaking my truth, even when it is difficult or harmful to me. It's okay.

fauigerzigerk 11mo ago

But Linux is GPL. That didn't stop Google from using it as a basis for something that is not GPL and in fact not even open source (Google Play Services). What leverage does a community of engineers have to insist on anything? Android could be entirely closed source. So could Chrome. It would be naive to assume that the power dynamics in our society can be fundamentally altered by a 10 line software license.

seba_dos1 11mo ago
Not that it would help in this particular scenario, but Linux did not embrace the GPL development from about 20 years ago.
pyeri 11mo ago
The Linux kernel is a separate system layer here, it's the AOSP parts like the Dalvik Runtime (equivalent of JRE) and components built on top of it (such as Play Store) which are being subject to permissive licensing abuse. If AOSP itself was GPL licensed, it'd have been difficult for Google to create something closed like Play Store as it'd have been considered derivative work. You're right that broadly speaking, there is very little that could be done to stop this but having a culture of "everything GPL" in an organization definitely helps. For example, Sun was farsighted enough, though they couldn't stop Oracle from acquiring MySql, Oracle was still forced to keep MySql under GPL and they were able to salvage MariaDB too. Similar was the case with Java. Oracle tried everything in its power to control its use and direction including legal means, it's only thanks to GPL that alternative implementations like OpenJDK and Amazon Corretto still exist. We can't even imagine the state of these software today if Sun hadn't licensed them under GPL originally but used some other permissive license instead!
- cachius 11mo ago
  Dalvik was used up until Android 4.4. Since Android 5 Lollipop the Java Runtime Environment is called the 'Android Runtime' or just ART. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Runtime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Runtime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software)

VagabundoP 11mo ago

Would that have really stoped google having its own cloud/app layer on top of the base system? OEM could still lock the bootloaders. Unless, maybe the EU, enforce a right to repair and tinker we'll be at the mercy of these companies with their walled gardens.

Jedd 11mo ago

> ... uncompromised open source (Stallmanist ... Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.

sjamaan 11mo ago

GPL doesn't help you one bit in this particular situation, because "regular users" would still be using the locked-down stock Android that came with their device. So they still can't install your app. Anyone who is already running a rooted Android or otherwise customized OS isn't affected by this, only developers who want to distribute their app to users.

vbezhenar 11mo ago
AFAIK GPLv3 requires to allow user to run modified software (so essentially device must be unlockable). Android is not GPLv3, unfortunately.
- botanical76 11mo ago
  Many Android devices are unlockable, you can run your own software, and yet we still have a problem. This problem exists irrespective of what you can technically do with the hardware due to the vote by corporations to favour device "security" over user freedom. A phone is useless to most people without the apps they depend on.
  - immibis 11mo ago
    I literally can't unlock my device (Xiaomi) because there's no way to, despite that it's apparently the law in Germany that GPLv2 software cannot be Tivoized because "corresponding source" was interpreted to include everything you need to install modified software on the device. (AVM vs I don't remember, regarding fritz!box home routers)
Zambyte 11mo ago
I can't root or otherwise customize my OS on my device because Linux is not GPLv3.
- fluidcruft 11mo ago
  Correct. And the reason GPLv3 exists is because TiVo did the same thing eons ago.

hyghjiyhu 11mo ago

I have a "weakly held strong opinion" on this subject. I think open source has been a disaster for the state of software for normal people. On the one hand exploited developers making peanuts or nothing for their hard work. On the other hand exploited users losing control of their devices and social networks. The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is rotten. Edit: then again maybe it's unfair of me to blame the decline in paid for software on open source.

jaapz 11mo ago
Sounds a bit like victim blaming, how is it the fault of open source software that corporations are exploiting them?
- kaoD 11mo ago
  Because they went "open source" and not "free software" to appease corporations. The trap was there all along and developers fell right into it.
MarsIronPI 11mo ago
> The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other. Charging for free and open-source software is not only possible, but encouraged Stallman himself.
- dns_snek 11mo ago
  Yes but how do you build a consumer software business on top of a licensing scheme that legally allows anyone to share their copy of the software with anyone else, and allows other businesses to resell your software at half the price?
  - pyeri 11mo ago

GaryBluto 11mo ago

> half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. I'd argue what you describe as "half-hearted" is actually more true to open source and libre software than restrictive licensing.

giancarlostoro 11mo ago

Google is the modern Microsoft spiritual successor to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Look at all the people who use gmail, youtube, etc all from a web app that Google wholly controls.

treyd 11mo ago

> This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. And we would have been in a better position to lobby for this if unions were widespread in the tech industry, which they are not.