6 ms·

I found the counter-argument made in the first reply to be more compelling. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/ms

by ja30278 13y ago

I found the counter-argument made in the first reply to be more compelling. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00178.html Whether you agree with the FSF or not, their whole existence stems from their beliefs about software freedom. If they compromise their principles in exchange for 'market share', then they quite literally have no purpose.

unmole 13y ago
Hear, hear!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jjindev 13y ago
This is a digression, but it is slightly more complicated. The top US software companies, by market cap, all use FSF tools, but then in turn decide their own separate levels of openness. Entrepreneurs here will use FSF tools, and then decide how far to open their own kimonos. The original FSF intent, that copyleft would provide contagion to a truly open world seems actually stalled. Apologies for the digression.
- anon1385 13y ago
  It largely stalled because of the web. Lots of SV startups for example are using GPL'd code, but because they only provide web apps they don't have to release their code. Worse still those startups often think they are on the 'good' side of the free software debate because they use some open source code in their products and maybe even contribute a bit back. In my opinion the FSF screwed up majorly by concentrating on local software and the GPL while ignoring the much greater danger of software as a service. The AGPL is too weak and the FSF never really pushed it. The GNU project have tried to create some online services/protocols themselves but they are a total joke (e.g. GNU Free Call).
  - jjindev 13y ago
    But don't most people here, at HN, want that right to decide their own openness? I mean, does everyone here plan to do a web startup and then produce a tarball of [their] full work? A full DB API? I understand that we all, or most of us, have contributed to free or open projects, but I thought the pure-souls, without a little "IP" one way or another, were very rare.
    - belorn 13y ago
      A common business model today is to threaten customers with lawsuit after the exchange of money for software has happened. As a author, I want to decide if I can accept having my work used in the above mode. I think such threats can cause quite a bit of harm, and there are many notable cases where ordinary people has had their whole life physically hurt by it. I can see how many developers want to decide for themselves if they are going to use the "threaten customers with lawsuit" model to earn a living. But it is no ones right to decide for me if they can use my work for it.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    IMHO, the fact that the GPL covers only distribution and not usage (i.e. the GPL is NOT an EULA), is the reason for why I consider it a free software license. AGPL never took off because AGPL is not really free and should have never happened. Unfortunately the FSF is blinded by these so called "dangers" in their fight against proprietary stuff, totally ignoring that AGPL in practice is only used purely for marketing reasons in dual-licensing schemes, there are no communities around AGPL projects and OSI doesn't really give a shit. As a consequence, AGPL is now posturing as a free software / open source license. > Worse still those startups often think they are on the 'good' side of the free software debate because they use some open source code in their products and maybe even contribute a bit back. You're making it sound as if that's a bad thing. The web is the most open distribution platform. The alternative to the web is not FSF's GNU, but rather the iTunes App Store, Google Play, Amazon's Appstore and the Windows Store. And compared to 15 years ago, the barrier to entry for kids wanting to experiment with building and distributing software is very low and the web in combination with open-source tools, libraries and platforms have made it possible. I also hate this holier-than-thou attitude.
chimeracoder 13y ago
Agreed. It's very rare these days to find people who are willing to stick to their principles; we should respect those who do, rather than criticize them for not compromising on their principles[0]. From your linked post: > You are crossposting to two public project lists of the GNU project with inflammatory language and mischaracterizations. You have been involved with the GNU project long enough to be well aware that this kind of crowbar approach does not lead to much more than headlines about Free Software infighting. ESR is doing little more than trolling here. He knows exactly where the FSF stands, and he knows exactly why that's not going to change (asking the FSF to do something that they believe hinders free software is like asking MADD to open a drive-through liquor store). The FSF has always been very clear that they see the "open source" movement as complementary to (though not the same as) the free software movement, fighting for similar goals but for different reasons[1]. It's sad to see ESR, an "open source" advocate, actively try to fan the flames. Nobody wins from this. Except advocates of closed, proprietary software. [0] Of course, ESR knows exactly what he's doing here - the issue is that he disagrees with their principles, but instead of debating those, he'd rather attack them for executing on their principles rather than executing on his principles. It's a cheap rhetorical trick and a rather low move. [1] "We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.", from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en..... (Don't be fooled by the title - the content of the article is very even-keeled).
- frezik 13y ago
  Seems like ESR is still fighting the Open Source vs Free Software battle of the late 90s. It hasn't dawned on him yet that everyone else thinks that there's little purpose in cannibalizing the movement over minor philosophical differences.
  - cwyers 13y ago
    By "everybody else" I think you're excluding the people who run the Free Software Foundation, in other words the very people ESR was addressing.
taybin 13y ago
But but but ESR is a social hacker! http://esr.1accesshost.com/ http://esr.1accesshost.com/
nickbauman 13y ago
Correct. Don't forget one of the most striking differences between free software vs open source software is the promotion of a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering, not merely to make better software artifacts. If you had to choose, which would you foster? An individual truth or a community of truth seekers? FSF is clearly about the latter.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I guess I see it a bit different and GCC is a pretty good example. LLVM and clang can be used in pretty much any project. They have provided every developer tools to use in anyway we wish. GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. Why does a 1,000 line GPL count for more than 100,000 lines of some other license? I think the best community is a voluntary one, and with security the way it is, I would rather developers who don't want to be part of the community benefit from the code just as I like the idea of everyone (who can) being vaccinated. GPL generates a self-selected community that has barriers to participation with other communities because the GPL code is held as more important than the rest.
  - Smegger 13y ago
    Personally I think that GCC would do much better under something like LGPL that way it could be used much more like Clang but still not sacrifice their principles. As the LGPL is one of their approved and favoured licences already it shouldn't be a problem for them.
  - fafner 13y ago
    > GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. That's simply not true.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      So, if Apple had incorporated GCC's parser into Xcode like they have included clang's, what would have been the effect?

by ja30278 13y ago

unmole 13y ago

Hear, hear!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jjindev 13y ago

This is a digression, but it is slightly more complicated. The top US software companies, by market cap, all use FSF tools, but then in turn decide their own separate levels of openness. Entrepreneurs here will use FSF tools, and then decide how far to open their own kimonos. The original FSF intent, that copyleft would provide contagion to a truly open world seems actually stalled. Apologies for the digression.

anon1385 13y ago
It largely stalled because of the web. Lots of SV startups for example are using GPL'd code, but because they only provide web apps they don't have to release their code. Worse still those startups often think they are on the 'good' side of the free software debate because they use some open source code in their products and maybe even contribute a bit back. In my opinion the FSF screwed up majorly by concentrating on local software and the GPL while ignoring the much greater danger of software as a service. The AGPL is too weak and the FSF never really pushed it. The GNU project have tried to create some online services/protocols themselves but they are a total joke (e.g. GNU Free Call).
- jjindev 13y ago
  But don't most people here, at HN, want that right to decide their own openness? I mean, does everyone here plan to do a web startup and then produce a tarball of [their] full work? A full DB API? I understand that we all, or most of us, have contributed to free or open projects, but I thought the pure-souls, without a little "IP" one way or another, were very rare.
  - belorn 13y ago
    A common business model today is to threaten customers with lawsuit after the exchange of money for software has happened. As a author, I want to decide if I can accept having my work used in the above mode. I think such threats can cause quite a bit of harm, and there are many notable cases where ordinary people has had their whole life physically hurt by it. I can see how many developers want to decide for themselves if they are going to use the "threaten customers with lawsuit" model to earn a living. But it is no ones right to decide for me if they can use my work for it.
- bad_user 13y ago
  IMHO, the fact that the GPL covers only distribution and not usage (i.e. the GPL is NOT an EULA), is the reason for why I consider it a free software license. AGPL never took off because AGPL is not really free and should have never happened. Unfortunately the FSF is blinded by these so called "dangers" in their fight against proprietary stuff, totally ignoring that AGPL in practice is only used purely for marketing reasons in dual-licensing schemes, there are no communities around AGPL projects and OSI doesn't really give a shit. As a consequence, AGPL is now posturing as a free software / open source license. > Worse still those startups often think they are on the 'good' side of the free software debate because they use some open source code in their products and maybe even contribute a bit back. You're making it sound as if that's a bad thing. The web is the most open distribution platform. The alternative to the web is not FSF's GNU, but rather the iTunes App Store, Google Play, Amazon's Appstore and the Windows Store. And compared to 15 years ago, the barrier to entry for kids wanting to experiment with building and distributing software is very low and the web in combination with open-source tools, libraries and platforms have made it possible. I also hate this holier-than-thou attitude.

chimeracoder 13y ago

Agreed. It's very rare these days to find people who are willing to stick to their principles; we should respect those who do, rather than criticize them for not compromising on their principles[0]. From your linked post: > You are crossposting to two public project lists of the GNU project with inflammatory language and mischaracterizations. You have been involved with the GNU project long enough to be well aware that this kind of crowbar approach does not lead to much more than headlines about Free Software infighting. ESR is doing little more than trolling here. He knows exactly where the FSF stands, and he knows exactly why that's not going to change (asking the FSF to do something that they believe hinders free software is like asking MADD to open a drive-through liquor store). The FSF has always been very clear that they see the "open source" movement as complementary to (though not the same as) the free software movement, fighting for similar goals but for different reasons[1]. It's sad to see ESR, an "open source" advocate, actively try to fan the flames. Nobody wins from this. Except advocates of closed, proprietary software. [0] Of course, ESR knows exactly what he's doing here - the issue is that he disagrees with their principles, but instead of debating those, he'd rather attack them for executing on their principles rather than executing on his principles. It's a cheap rhetorical trick and a rather low move. [1] "We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.", from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en..... (Don't be fooled by the title - the content of the article is very even-keeled).

frezik 13y ago
Seems like ESR is still fighting the Open Source vs Free Software battle of the late 90s. It hasn't dawned on him yet that everyone else thinks that there's little purpose in cannibalizing the movement over minor philosophical differences.
- cwyers 13y ago
  By "everybody else" I think you're excluding the people who run the Free Software Foundation, in other words the very people ESR was addressing.

taybin 13y ago

But but but ESR is a social hacker! http://esr.1accesshost.com/ http://esr.1accesshost.com/

nickbauman 13y ago

Correct. Don't forget one of the most striking differences between free software vs open source software is the promotion of a community of people who add to the public knowledge of software engineering, not merely to make better software artifacts. If you had to choose, which would you foster? An individual truth or a community of truth seekers? FSF is clearly about the latter.

protomyth 13y ago
I guess I see it a bit different and GCC is a pretty good example. LLVM and clang can be used in pretty much any project. They have provided every developer tools to use in anyway we wish. GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. Why does a 1,000 line GPL count for more than 100,000 lines of some other license? I think the best community is a voluntary one, and with security the way it is, I would rather developers who don't want to be part of the community benefit from the code just as I like the idea of everyone (who can) being vaccinated. GPL generates a self-selected community that has barriers to participation with other communities because the GPL code is held as more important than the rest.
- Smegger 13y ago
  Personally I think that GCC would do much better under something like LGPL that way it could be used much more like Clang but still not sacrifice their principles. As the LGPL is one of their approved and favoured licences already it shouldn't be a problem for them.
- fafner 13y ago
  > GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. That's simply not true.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    So, if Apple had incorporated GCC's parser into Xcode like they have included clang's, what would have been the effect?