3 ms·

The vast majority of computer users, I would suppose, have no concept whatsoever of software freedom. A lot of software is still proprietary, and people are st

by tjr 17y ago

The vast majority of computer users, I would suppose, have no concept whatsoever of software freedom. A lot of software is still proprietary, and people are still running into problems just like RMS did years ago with being unable to fix the printer driver software. The software landscape has changed, but software freedom remains essential. The FSF has been perhaps a bit slow to respond to some of the changes (e.g., the AGPL probably should have been developed years earlier), but the underlying message stays the same, and, I believe, is increasingly important as software usage continues to waft into every conceivable facet of our lives.

blasdel 17y ago
The AGPL is a completely unenforceable EULA, both practically and legally. It attempts to restrict your ability to run the software -- freedom 0 The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit from this work
- lamby 17y ago
  > noone but I may profit from this work With a strict definition of "profit" this seems more a criticism of dual-licensed GPL works than the AGPL; software published under the AGPL does not grant any sort of monopoly to the person publishing it -- even if they were selling a proprietary version of the same code, it doesn't restrict third parties making money from it. And if we weaken our definition of "profit" to mean some sort of benefit, then the argument is even weaker.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    Third parties attempting to extend the software and sell access are intended to release source code. The only room for profit is in network effects -- any other attempt to sustain margins more than barely above actual costs would be tenuous, as someone else could come along and undercut you. The copyright holder(s) that licensed their work under the AGPL are not subject to any such restrictions (no multi-licensing is necessary). There's no way to compete with them fairly.
    - lamby 17y ago
      Okay, so you're essentially describing a situation where the copyright holder offers access to a "pro" version and a "vanilla" version, with only the latter being licensed under the AGPL? I would certainly concede that this scenario would make it difficult for third parties to maintain feature parity, but that's a long way from saying the AGPL offers "no way of competing" with the copyright holder; writing features that are not present in any version would be an obvious starting point. (You also grossly misrepresent the market for "network effects", but that's somewhat tangential)
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      Do you have links to a fuller explanation of the problems with the AGPL? A quick Google returned nothing obviously interesting (except this very discussion as result #2).

by tjr 17y ago

blasdel 17y ago

The AGPL is a completely unenforceable EULA, both practically and legally. It attempts to restrict your ability to run the software -- freedom 0 The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit from this work

lamby 17y ago
> noone but I may profit from this work With a strict definition of "profit" this seems more a criticism of dual-licensed GPL works than the AGPL; software published under the AGPL does not grant any sort of monopoly to the person publishing it -- even if they were selling a proprietary version of the same code, it doesn't restrict third parties making money from it. And if we weaken our definition of "profit" to mean some sort of benefit, then the argument is even weaker.
- blasdel 17y ago
  Third parties attempting to extend the software and sell access are intended to release source code. The only room for profit is in network effects -- any other attempt to sustain margins more than barely above actual costs would be tenuous, as someone else could come along and undercut you. The copyright holder(s) that licensed their work under the AGPL are not subject to any such restrictions (no multi-licensing is necessary). There's no way to compete with them fairly.
  - lamby 17y ago
    Okay, so you're essentially describing a situation where the copyright holder offers access to a "pro" version and a "vanilla" version, with only the latter being licensed under the AGPL? I would certainly concede that this scenario would make it difficult for third parties to maintain feature parity, but that's a long way from saying the AGPL offers "no way of competing" with the copyright holder; writing features that are not present in any version would be an obvious starting point. (You also grossly misrepresent the market for "network effects", but that's somewhat tangential)
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Do you have links to a fuller explanation of the problems with the AGPL? A quick Google returned nothing obviously interesting (except this very discussion as result #2).