6 ms·

"Why Free Software missed the point of Open Source.": doing WTF you like, commercial or not.

dllthomas 13y ago
To be clear: Free Software does not object to commercial activity. Copyleft requirements happen to get in the way of some commercial activity, which the FSF and related community finds objectionable for reasons unrelated to its commercial nature. Stallman opposes "noncommercial" requirements in licenses, no FSF license has these, and such clauses are reason to call a license "nonfree".
- thatthatis 13y ago
  Gpl on commerce, in a nutshell: Sell this software without ability to modify: tyrant Use this software to create a closed REST API: no problem
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    The license doesn't prevent the latter, but the FSF doesn't approve. There's also the AGPL, which would forbid the closed REST API. None of that means there's no opportunity to make money. People might pay for convenience (I don't have to set up and run my own server, even though I technically could) or access to networks - if Facebook AGPL'ed their whole stack, people using Facebook would keep using Facebook because their friends are on Facebook.
    - thatthatis 13y ago
      So, where is the line where providing services with the software becomes acceptable? An API is obviously a service provided with the software, but so is consulting using a GPL statistical package. How, and where, can you draw the line between those things?
      - chriswarbo 13y ago
        The customer is not the end-user of the GPL code; the consultant is. The customer is an end-user of the consultant. That relationship will be governed by a completely separate contract. On a related note, the output of a GPL program is not GPLed. I can compile non-GPLed code with GCC. Myths like this keep getting used as FUD. Licenses with a network-use clause, like AGPL and CPAL, define access over a network as distribution. This would cover an API, but would not cover going via a consultant, since the consultant isn't software. If you want to argue that people's minds are software, you may as well argue that our teachers hold the copyright to our thoughts.
        thatthatis 13y ago
        I'll have to look at those network use clauses. I've always found proprietary, BSD, and AGPL to have coherent philosophies. The GPL, on the other hand, has always felt to me to be much more of a mishmash of whatever Stallman likes or dislikes.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I'm confused - it's the GPL that fails to make a distinction between the REST API and the consultant. I'd thought you were criticizing that distinction as being arbitrary.
        thatthatis 13y ago
        Yes, that's what I think and what I thought I'd been saying. What of what I've said indicates otherwise?
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I see contradiction in: 1) The AGPL is philosophically well founded, the GPL is arbitrary. 2) The AGPL enforces an arbitrary distinction, the GPL does not.

To be clear: Free Software does not object to commercial activity. Copyleft requirements happen to get in the way of some commercial activity, which the FSF and related community finds objectionable for reasons unrelated to its commercial nature. Stallman opposes "noncommercial" requirements in licenses, no FSF license has these, and such clauses are reason to call a license "nonfree".

thatthatis 13y ago
Gpl on commerce, in a nutshell: Sell this software without ability to modify: tyrant Use this software to create a closed REST API: no problem
- dllthomas 13y ago
  The license doesn't prevent the latter, but the FSF doesn't approve. There's also the AGPL, which would forbid the closed REST API. None of that means there's no opportunity to make money. People might pay for convenience (I don't have to set up and run my own server, even though I technically could) or access to networks - if Facebook AGPL'ed their whole stack, people using Facebook would keep using Facebook because their friends are on Facebook.
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    So, where is the line where providing services with the software becomes acceptable? An API is obviously a service provided with the software, but so is consulting using a GPL statistical package. How, and where, can you draw the line between those things?
    - chriswarbo 13y ago
      The customer is not the end-user of the GPL code; the consultant is. The customer is an end-user of the consultant. That relationship will be governed by a completely separate contract. On a related note, the output of a GPL program is not GPLed. I can compile non-GPLed code with GCC. Myths like this keep getting used as FUD. Licenses with a network-use clause, like AGPL and CPAL, define access over a network as distribution. This would cover an API, but would not cover going via a consultant, since the consultant isn't software. If you want to argue that people's minds are software, you may as well argue that our teachers hold the copyright to our thoughts.
      - thatthatis 13y ago
        I'll have to look at those network use clauses. I've always found proprietary, BSD, and AGPL to have coherent philosophies. The GPL, on the other hand, has always felt to me to be much more of a mishmash of whatever Stallman likes or dislikes.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I'm confused - it's the GPL that fails to make a distinction between the REST API and the consultant. I'd thought you were criticizing that distinction as being arbitrary.
        thatthatis 13y ago
        Yes, that's what I think and what I thought I'd been saying. What of what I've said indicates otherwise?
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I see contradiction in: 1) The AGPL is philosophically well founded, the GPL is arbitrary. 2) The AGPL enforces an arbitrary distinction, the GPL does not.