6 ms·

That is good to know RMS inspired you. Just a suggestion, instead of contributing to "open source" projects, look for "free software" projects.

by chatman 13y ago

eurleif 13y ago
I understand that "free software" is what RMS prefers, but why is it better to contribute projects using that terminology? Aren't most open source projects also free software projects, even if they don't call themselves that? Isn't contributing to free software a good thing, regardless of what it calls itself?
- e12e 13y ago
  First, I think it is great that you contribute to open source projects! However: > Aren't most open source projects also free software projects, even if they don't call themselves that? No, I don't think that would be correct --- if you agree that there is a difference between free software and open source (and I think there is). Free software takes steps to protect the rights and freedom of [edit: all of] its users, both "first generation" (those you directly distribute software to), and "later generations" (those that might get a copy, or modified copy via one or more intermediaries). So, a project can't be rightly called free software (as opposed to "just" open source) unless it is distributed under a licence that takes steps to protect its users (which in general would mean (A|L)GPL). Now, there are probably a few projects that might call themselves "open source" (or not use the term free software), but still use such a licence -- but I don't think they are in the majority. In particular, a lot of software that is free on the surface, isn't as free as it probably should be; namely server side software that is licensed under (L)GPL rather than AGPL. Or rather, it is licensed with the "user" being a server operator or business, not an "end user". This facilitates services that lock in your email, chats, blog posts, social relationships etc, without (necessarily) giving the end user a "way out". I'm far from the point where I recommend everything should be AGPL -- but if we are talking about end user freedom, then there's a lot of software projects that do very little to protect that -- and in that sense, probably shouldn't be considered free software.
  - elehack 13y ago
    The FSF is happy to consider projects under permissive free licenses (MIT, BSD, APL, MPL) to be free software. Perhaps not ideally-licensed software, but they have no problem calling them free software.
    - e12e 13y ago
      True. I didn't really mean for my comment to be a normative standard for what is considered "free software", more to highlight how one might differentiate "open" and "free". As for the licences you list, I'd say that MIT, BSD and APL belong together as "different" from GPL, while the MPL is much closer to the GPL.
      - ezequiel-garzon 13y ago
        Could you name any well-known open-source project that is not free in your view? I hope you won't suggest SQLite, which is in the public domain.
        e12e 13y ago
        That would actually be an example of something that is open, but does little to ensure end-user freedom. Please note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as such -- just that -- if we're talking about whether or not software is licensed in a way that ensures end user freedom or not, then putting software in the public domain is not an effective way to do that. One could take the sqlite source, modify it (to break file format comparability) and build something like fossil[1] -- but where the client software depends on a server side component ("fossilhub"), and then keep both the client and server proprietary. Now, anyone using this service would be locked in to using the proprietary clients and servers. It'd be difficult to modify the client, and difficult to migrate your data out -- and if the company that hosted the server shut down, it would take the data with it. Obviously, sqlite being in the public domain, doesn't dictate this (see the actual fossil software for a counter example). But on a spectrum, if something is released under the (A)GPL, and the licence is followed, end user lock in as a result of building on that software is less likely. The licence does a better job of protecting end user freedom. Would I say that sqlite, in general, isn't free software? Probably not. Would I call it "more free" if it was under the (L)GPL -- maybe. With libraries, how you define such things is tricky -- because the intended (end) user is different. When you release something like sqlite, you want both the developer user, and the end user to have freedoms. You might want to enable the developer to restrict the end users freedoms -- and that is fine -- but calling such a licence "more free" just because it shifts which type of users' freedoms it protects, doesn't sit quite right with me. As an example, one could take pretty much any software under the BSD licence, or say the whole of a BSD system. Because it facilitates closed systems. It's been suggested that the PS3 OS runs off a modified version of FreeBSD, for example. Now, the console business is largely based on lock-in; subsidize the hardware for a while, make money from licences. If people could just run anything they wanted on the subsidized hardware, that wouldn't work very well -- you'd essentially be giving away hardware. It'd also be illegal dumping in most regulated free markets. I'd love for things to be regulated so that selling such crippled hardware wasn't legal. That would probably mean a hike in console prices, however (well, at least in the previous generation of consoles -- it's a little less clear now that both Sony and Microsoft will be selling PCs). Another example (well the same example) might be iOS/iphone vs Android devices. Android running the Linux kernel, lowers the bar considerably for companies like Canonical and Mozilla to develop new OSs that run on existing hardware. Yet another example would be various routers and switches running propietary software, leaving the owner stranded if the upstream source of the software stops development for some reason. Free is a spectrum - my original response tried to highlight one difference between "open" and "free" -- and in that context, I wouldn't consider sqlite to be particularily free (nor entirely closed!). I do consider it do be (entirely) open. [1] http://www.fossil-scm.org/ http://www.fossil-scm.org/
- elviejo 13y ago
  The difference is one of values and principles... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
kazagistar 13y ago
What? If they are GPL compatible, what does it matter?
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
My apologies; that's what I meant. I tend to (incorrectly) use "open source" synonymously with "free software" when writing informally. In this case, the project that I contributed to was distributed under the MIT (Expat) License, which, to my knowledge, is GPL compatible.

That is good to know RMS inspired you. Just a suggestion, instead of contributing to "open source" projects, look for "free software" projects.

by chatman 13y ago

That is good to know RMS inspired you. Just a suggestion, instead of contributing to "open source" projects, look for "free software" projects.

eurleif 13y ago

I understand that "free software" is what RMS prefers, but why is it better to contribute projects using that terminology? Aren't most open source projects also free software projects, even if they don't call themselves that? Isn't contributing to free software a good thing, regardless of what it calls itself?

e12e 13y ago
First, I think it is great that you contribute to open source projects! However: > Aren't most open source projects also free software projects, even if they don't call themselves that? No, I don't think that would be correct --- if you agree that there is a difference between free software and open source (and I think there is). Free software takes steps to protect the rights and freedom of [edit: all of] its users, both "first generation" (those you directly distribute software to), and "later generations" (those that might get a copy, or modified copy via one or more intermediaries). So, a project can't be rightly called free software (as opposed to "just" open source) unless it is distributed under a licence that takes steps to protect its users (which in general would mean (A|L)GPL). Now, there are probably a few projects that might call themselves "open source" (or not use the term free software), but still use such a licence -- but I don't think they are in the majority. In particular, a lot of software that is free on the surface, isn't as free as it probably should be; namely server side software that is licensed under (L)GPL rather than AGPL. Or rather, it is licensed with the "user" being a server operator or business, not an "end user". This facilitates services that lock in your email, chats, blog posts, social relationships etc, without (necessarily) giving the end user a "way out". I'm far from the point where I recommend everything should be AGPL -- but if we are talking about end user freedom, then there's a lot of software projects that do very little to protect that -- and in that sense, probably shouldn't be considered free software.
- elehack 13y ago
  The FSF is happy to consider projects under permissive free licenses (MIT, BSD, APL, MPL) to be free software. Perhaps not ideally-licensed software, but they have no problem calling them free software.
  - e12e 13y ago
    True. I didn't really mean for my comment to be a normative standard for what is considered "free software", more to highlight how one might differentiate "open" and "free". As for the licences you list, I'd say that MIT, BSD and APL belong together as "different" from GPL, while the MPL is much closer to the GPL.
    - ezequiel-garzon 13y ago
      Could you name any well-known open-source project that is not free in your view? I hope you won't suggest SQLite, which is in the public domain.
      - e12e 13y ago
        That would actually be an example of something that is open, but does little to ensure end-user freedom. Please note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as such -- just that -- if we're talking about whether or not software is licensed in a way that ensures end user freedom or not, then putting software in the public domain is not an effective way to do that. One could take the sqlite source, modify it (to break file format comparability) and build something like fossil[1] -- but where the client software depends on a server side component ("fossilhub"), and then keep both the client and server proprietary. Now, anyone using this service would be locked in to using the proprietary clients and servers. It'd be difficult to modify the client, and difficult to migrate your data out -- and if the company that hosted the server shut down, it would take the data with it. Obviously, sqlite being in the public domain, doesn't dictate this (see the actual fossil software for a counter example). But on a spectrum, if something is released under the (A)GPL, and the licence is followed, end user lock in as a result of building on that software is less likely. The licence does a better job of protecting end user freedom. Would I say that sqlite, in general, isn't free software? Probably not. Would I call it "more free" if it was under the (L)GPL -- maybe. With libraries, how you define such things is tricky -- because the intended (end) user is different. When you release something like sqlite, you want both the developer user, and the end user to have freedoms. You might want to enable the developer to restrict the end users freedoms -- and that is fine -- but calling such a licence "more free" just because it shifts which type of users' freedoms it protects, doesn't sit quite right with me. As an example, one could take pretty much any software under the BSD licence, or say the whole of a BSD system. Because it facilitates closed systems. It's been suggested that the PS3 OS runs off a modified version of FreeBSD, for example. Now, the console business is largely based on lock-in; subsidize the hardware for a while, make money from licences. If people could just run anything they wanted on the subsidized hardware, that wouldn't work very well -- you'd essentially be giving away hardware. It'd also be illegal dumping in most regulated free markets. I'd love for things to be regulated so that selling such crippled hardware wasn't legal. That would probably mean a hike in console prices, however (well, at least in the previous generation of consoles -- it's a little less clear now that both Sony and Microsoft will be selling PCs). Another example (well the same example) might be iOS/iphone vs Android devices. Android running the Linux kernel, lowers the bar considerably for companies like Canonical and Mozilla to develop new OSs that run on existing hardware. Yet another example would be various routers and switches running propietary software, leaving the owner stranded if the upstream source of the software stops development for some reason. Free is a spectrum - my original response tried to highlight one difference between "open" and "free" -- and in that context, I wouldn't consider sqlite to be particularily free (nor entirely closed!). I do consider it do be (entirely) open. [1] http://www.fossil-scm.org/ http://www.fossil-scm.org/
elviejo 13y ago
The difference is one of values and principles... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...

kazagistar 13y ago

What? If they are GPL compatible, what does it matter?

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

My apologies; that's what I meant. I tend to (incorrectly) use "open source" synonymously with "free software" when writing informally. In this case, the project that I contributed to was distributed under the MIT (Expat) License, which, to my knowledge, is GPL compatible.