4 ms·

I think the issue is that the stallmanites cling too much to the state. They think the state is there to apply rule of law(something which in practice rarely ha

I think the issue is that the stallmanites cling too much to the state. They think the state is there to apply rule of law(something which in practice rarely happens even for serious crimes like murder) and that it can effectively apply law to itself; this has been proven wrong time and time again, and is one of the failings of contemporary societies. I am enchanted by the freedoms of free software, just as I am by freedoms in broader life; Freedom is part of the product when I pay for software, and the understanding is that I will come back to the author if I want the work of the people who best understand it, rather than the people who refuse to let me. I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard(for whom I have no personal gripe), because Richard has a government addiction(even when it comes to problems widely caused by government to begin with, such as software patent litigation). If we can learn to separate our understanding of justice from our misguided best wishes for the state, I think free software, and freedom in general can prosper.

chatman 13y ago
> I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement doesn't mean he owns freedom or free software. He is doing a wonderful job of bringing about awareness of free software (not just "open" software).
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and made their goals all that more difficult to reach.
  - belorn 13y ago
    Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about. This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather than more fragmented. As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly: 1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical, rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user. 2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term "patent agreement" to it. If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices, and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same legal instructions as GPLv2. Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve, and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.
spacelizard 13y ago
Where are you getting these sentiments from? The free software movement has nothing to gain from being anti-government. By itself it's a relatively non-partisan political movement. Copyleft licensing is just another tool they use to promote themselves. Furthermore, a stated goal of the movement is to encourage the use of free software in public institutions. As long as these public institutions exist, they can and should be using free software. None of this has anything to do with perceptions of "justice," it's about promoting the message and the attitude.
belorn 13y ago
Might I ask, what do you think the FSF should do regarding software patents? The state impose the fact that there is software patents. FSF don't want software patents. Ignoring software patents resulted in the Novell deal and Microsoft "be very afraid tour". The tour which is explained by (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9019238/Update_Microsoft_wants_royalties_for_open_source_software?nlid=1&source=NLT_AM http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9019238/Update_Micros...) and (http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_foss_.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_foss_.html). What would the FSF best action be here? The kernel team's opinion seems to be that we should be ignoring the patent situation in favor of contributions from companies who have lawyers who will take the broadest possible interpretation when assessing patent scope. (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/ http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/) I can understand the kernel team point of view, and FSF. Both is valid approaches, but at the end you got to pick which devil you want to fight against. Currently, I dont see any patent agreements being levied against FOSS users, nor do I see any patent owners trying to claim ownership of the linux kernel. Maybe the GPLv3 patent agreement clause wasn't needed, or maybe the linux kernel is an exceptional project. I will need more data before claiming which "side" is right, or if both are.
- microcolonel 13y ago
  Right, in personal use software, I can essentially ignore the existence of software patents; however there's an ongoing chilling effect if I distribute the software, and especially if I choose to sell services around it. I would personally prefer something as destructive as patent be extinguished along with the only institution capable of enforcing it, but that seems like a stretch goal. I implement all sorts of things personally which I'm only comfortable sharing with friends, which is the real problem. I'm not sure the FSF has any leverage to help people in the free software community freely express their implementations of various restricted technologies. I have no idea what the FSF should be doing, and it seems they don't have much more of an idea.

chatman 13y ago

> I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement doesn't mean he owns freedom or free software. He is doing a wonderful job of bringing about awareness of free software (not just "open" software).

Sanddancer 13y ago
If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and made their goals all that more difficult to reach.
- belorn 13y ago
  Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about. This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather than more fragmented. As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly: 1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical, rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user. 2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term "patent agreement" to it. If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices, and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same legal instructions as GPLv2. Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve, and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.

spacelizard 13y ago

Where are you getting these sentiments from? The free software movement has nothing to gain from being anti-government. By itself it's a relatively non-partisan political movement. Copyleft licensing is just another tool they use to promote themselves. Furthermore, a stated goal of the movement is to encourage the use of free software in public institutions. As long as these public institutions exist, they can and should be using free software. None of this has anything to do with perceptions of "justice," it's about promoting the message and the attitude.

belorn 13y ago

Might I ask, what do you think the FSF should do regarding software patents? The state impose the fact that there is software patents. FSF don't want software patents. Ignoring software patents resulted in the Novell deal and Microsoft "be very afraid tour". The tour which is explained by (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9019238/Update_Microsoft_wants_royalties_for_open_source_software?nlid=1&source=NLT_AM http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9019238/Update_Micros...) and (http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_foss_.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_foss_.html). What would the FSF best action be here? The kernel team's opinion seems to be that we should be ignoring the patent situation in favor of contributions from companies who have lawyers who will take the broadest possible interpretation when assessing patent scope. (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/ http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/) I can understand the kernel team point of view, and FSF. Both is valid approaches, but at the end you got to pick which devil you want to fight against. Currently, I dont see any patent agreements being levied against FOSS users, nor do I see any patent owners trying to claim ownership of the linux kernel. Maybe the GPLv3 patent agreement clause wasn't needed, or maybe the linux kernel is an exceptional project. I will need more data before claiming which "side" is right, or if both are.

microcolonel 13y ago
Right, in personal use software, I can essentially ignore the existence of software patents; however there's an ongoing chilling effect if I distribute the software, and especially if I choose to sell services around it. I would personally prefer something as destructive as patent be extinguished along with the only institution capable of enforcing it, but that seems like a stretch goal. I implement all sorts of things personally which I'm only comfortable sharing with friends, which is the real problem. I'm not sure the FSF has any leverage to help people in the free software community freely express their implementations of various restricted technologies. I have no idea what the FSF should be doing, and it seems they don't have much more of an idea.