10 ms·

This is so important that it is worth repeating. > Stallman created the GPL because he cared about user freedom. > Stallman created the GPL because he cared a

by minot 11y ago

This is so important that it is worth repeating. > Stallman created the GPL because he cared about user freedom. > Stallman created the GPL because he cared about user freedom. As GPL has evolved, the focus on user freedom has gotten clearer. It is not that GPL is against freedom for developers or software vendors. However, the way I understand it the consequences in this area are more side effects than guiding principles. It is not like the focus suddenly changed at some point. It has alwasy been this way. Let us look at how FSF defines free software: > A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Without even reading the four points, we already see that what defines a software as free software is whether or not the "program's users" have certain freedoms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html (I am not a lawyer. This is just my personal interpretation.)

epistasis 11y ago
This also bears repeating: >Stallman had a printer which had proprietary drivers, and he wanted to fix an issue with the driver. >Stallman had a printer which had proprietary drivers, and he wanted to fix an issue with the driver. In the fixing mode, Stallman was not operating as a user, he was operating as a developer. This is a "freedom 1" activity, which is a freedom that is only useful for developers. The user and the developer can not be fully separated when it comes to freedom here. Modification of software, and redistribution of that modification is fundamentally a developer activity. Non-developer users can hire developers to do what they want, but ultimately there's a developer involved in this, otherwise what's the point of source code?
- richardjs 11y ago
  Any user can become a developer if he or she chooses. The user may decide it requires too much work to learn to code in order to implement a given change, but the option is there nonetheless.
  - tome 11y ago
    The user can also pay a developer for modifications to open source software. They typically can't do that if the software is proprietary.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Sure, that's freedom 1. But there's also the freedom to redistribute unfettered with no restrictions (sharing with your neighbor), no usage restrictions (freedom 0) and then even non-developer users can know how to make custom builds of a program. Besides, every developer is also a user. Reciprocal guarantees like copyleft ensure user freedom is preserved because all changes are shared across the community, meaning that technical and non-technical users alike benefit from using modified and enhanced copies.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  This was a story today: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/ Let's say I'm a user of that vehicle. I read this article. I want my Jeep audited and fixed, and I want the code modified to indicate any time the vehicle is accepting remote commands. You cannot separate developers and users, because users can hire developers to perform actions on their behalf. I can't fix my own car, but I have problems with it, and I want to be able to hire someone of my choosing to fix it.
  - bunderbunder 11y ago
    Consider an alternative scenario: malware. In that situation, as a consumer, I'm actually pretty jazzed about living inside Apple's walled garden on my iPhone. The phone refusing to run unsigned code gives me a little bit more security. It also largely defeats the scenario where I can hire someone to modify my phone's software. But I'm OK with that tradeoff, because I think it puts me on the side of greatest benefit to myself. I suspect most non-programmer users would fall in the same camp.
higherpurpose 11y ago
I remember a big argument in the early years of Android. Google kept promoting it (to the users) as a liberating "open source" OS - except it only worked that way until it reached the manufacturers and carriers. After that, completely locked down, and often with many pre-installed annoying things on it. So next time another company promotes "freedom" and "open source" let's make sure it actually directly benefits the user.
vog 11y ago
Indeed, you can't repeat this often enough. I have the impression that most anti-GPL sentiment comes from developers who claim their role as something more precious than the role of the users.

by minot 11y ago

epistasis 11y ago

This also bears repeating: >Stallman had a printer which had proprietary drivers, and he wanted to fix an issue with the driver. >Stallman had a printer which had proprietary drivers, and he wanted to fix an issue with the driver. In the fixing mode, Stallman was not operating as a user, he was operating as a developer. This is a "freedom 1" activity, which is a freedom that is only useful for developers. The user and the developer can not be fully separated when it comes to freedom here. Modification of software, and redistribution of that modification is fundamentally a developer activity. Non-developer users can hire developers to do what they want, but ultimately there's a developer involved in this, otherwise what's the point of source code?

richardjs 11y ago
Any user can become a developer if he or she chooses. The user may decide it requires too much work to learn to code in order to implement a given change, but the option is there nonetheless.
- tome 11y ago
  The user can also pay a developer for modifications to open source software. They typically can't do that if the software is proprietary.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Sure, that's freedom 1. But there's also the freedom to redistribute unfettered with no restrictions (sharing with your neighbor), no usage restrictions (freedom 0) and then even non-developer users can know how to make custom builds of a program. Besides, every developer is also a user. Reciprocal guarantees like copyleft ensure user freedom is preserved because all changes are shared across the community, meaning that technical and non-technical users alike benefit from using modified and enhanced copies.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
This was a story today: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/ Let's say I'm a user of that vehicle. I read this article. I want my Jeep audited and fixed, and I want the code modified to indicate any time the vehicle is accepting remote commands. You cannot separate developers and users, because users can hire developers to perform actions on their behalf. I can't fix my own car, but I have problems with it, and I want to be able to hire someone of my choosing to fix it.
- bunderbunder 11y ago
  Consider an alternative scenario: malware. In that situation, as a consumer, I'm actually pretty jazzed about living inside Apple's walled garden on my iPhone. The phone refusing to run unsigned code gives me a little bit more security. It also largely defeats the scenario where I can hire someone to modify my phone's software. But I'm OK with that tradeoff, because I think it puts me on the side of greatest benefit to myself. I suspect most non-programmer users would fall in the same camp.

higherpurpose 11y ago

I remember a big argument in the early years of Android. Google kept promoting it (to the users) as a liberating "open source" OS - except it only worked that way until it reached the manufacturers and carriers. After that, completely locked down, and often with many pre-installed annoying things on it. So next time another company promotes "freedom" and "open source" let's make sure it actually directly benefits the user.

vog 11y ago

Indeed, you can't repeat this often enough. I have the impression that most anti-GPL sentiment comes from developers who claim their role as something more precious than the role of the users.