5 ms·

I think the GPL is a little outdated in that it misses the point on what really matters to ensuring the user's freedom. I think having an open source applicati

by hasenj 11y ago

I think the GPL is a little outdated in that it misses the point on what really matters to ensuring the user's freedom. I think having an open source application is useless to the end user. I mean really useless in and of itself. What really matters is standarizing the data format and providing tools to convert/export to various other formats. Say I'm using application X as a free-software word processor. Two years later I decide I'm done with it, for various reasons it's annoying. I want to migrate to some other application Y. Also suppose that X hasn't been in development for over a year and no one is maintaining it. Also suppose X is very complicated and no one understands how the code works. What do I get as a user? What benefit do I get from X being open-source? Almost nothing. On the other hand, if X came with tools to "liberate" data from itself, and had its data format extensively documented, then I could get some real benefits. The only thing open source does is allow developers to collectively work on infrastructure tools. Such as git, etc.

yarrel 11y ago
As a user, you get an application that uses the library that application X used to export its files. Or you get a version of application X compiled for your new platform, that can save to an intermediate format loadable by application Y. Or you get application Y with an implementation of the file format for application X because the developers were free to study application X's code. Those are the benefits you get as a user. Better code, usable in more scenarios, that better supports your freedom to use it. The GPL ensures that freedom.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I think having an open source application is useless to the end user. I mean really useless in and of itself. It's not useless. The end user does benefit from it, just not directly. They benefit from the various modifications and enhancements under copyleft that are either integrated upstream or make it to other projects that they may use. They're also unhampered by usage or redistribution restrictions that may potentially get them into legal quagmire from more zealous vendors. What really matters is standarizing the data format and providing tools to convert/export to various other formats. Data formats are software, too. Other than the spec that standardizes them, there is a reference implementation which should preferably be free. In fact, being free is crucially important here: it means any extensions to the format are sent back, instead of a vendor pulling off an "embrace, extend, extinguish" by adding non-standard features to their proprietary implementation which they then lock other software to. Also suppose that X hasn't been in development for over a year and no one is maintaining it. Then the project is orphaned. Someone may or may not step up. The good thing is they can. Also suppose X is very complicated and no one understands how the code works. And yet the code is there, so it's not insurmountable if the utility is high enough to get past the bus factor.
pessimizer 11y ago
> I think the GPL is a little outdated in that it misses the point on what really matters to ensuring the user's freedom. It doesn't have to be either/or. What the GPL gives us matters very much, what the AGPL gives us extends that farther, and maybe software freedom should be extended even farther. The problem with "liberating" data formats is that data formats would have to be standardized - which 1) potentially kills innovation, and 2) implies a level of organization and unity of purpose that software practitioners simply don't have.
quadrangle 11y ago
Perfect example of why "open source" vs "software freedom" is a real issue. GPL isn't "open source" — it isn't about source, that's an implementation detail. It's about freedom. The OSI's definition of "open source" is effectively synonymous, but you are misunderstanding the importance by using the term "open source". As an end user, software freedom means I can install something on any machine I want, run it as I want, share it with others… none of that requires source. If I want to tweak the software, that may require the source. The freedom is the freedom to change the software — whether or not the change is substantial enough to need full source to do so. Having software freedom is definitely useful to me as an end user.
copsarebastards 11y ago
I think having an open source application is useless to the end user. I mean really useless in and of itself. What really matters is that the user is alive and healthy. Say I'm dying of cancer. Two years later I die of cancer. What do I get as a user? What benefit do I get from X being open-source? Almost nothing. On the other hand, if X came with a cure for cancer, then I could get some real benefits. The only thing open source does is allow developers to gain understanding of how it works even if no one understands how it works, and then write tools to "liberate" data from itself and extensive documentation of data formats knowing that it matches the source code. But I suppose you're right, none of that is useful if you're looking for other people to solve your problems.
- hasenj 11y ago
  No one is claiming having an open source application will cure cancer. FSF promotes "free software" as a means of ensuring the user's freedom. When in fact, if you have a piece of free software that's old and unmaintained and the code is complicated and no one understands it, your software is by all definitions "free", but it doesn't really give you the freedom you are seeking, unless you are a developer yourself. Most of the time, you will get more freedom if the developers had documented their data formats and provided tools to liberate your data.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    > No one is claiming having an open source application will cure cancer. What? I thought they were!!1! > When in fact, if you have a piece of free software that's old and unmaintained and the code is complicated and no one understands it, your software is by all definitions "free", but it doesn't really give you the freedom you are seeking, unless you are a developer yourself. Well obviously knowledge is power, but criticizing the GPL for users' lack of education is like criticizing the GPL for users dying of cancer. Actually, it's less reasonable: users are free to fix their own ignorance, while it's a bit harder to fix cancer. > Most of the time, you will get more freedom if the developers had documented their data formats and provided tools to liberate your data. ¿Porqué no los dos? I'm not sure why you seem to think that ensuring license freedom is mutually exclusive with documentation and tooling. If anything, I see a positive correlation with open source and well-documented, migratable data. Have you ever tried to pull data out of an Excel spreadsheet into a database?

by hasenj 11y ago

yarrel 11y ago

As a user, you get an application that uses the library that application X used to export its files. Or you get a version of application X compiled for your new platform, that can save to an intermediate format loadable by application Y. Or you get application Y with an implementation of the file format for application X because the developers were free to study application X's code. Those are the benefits you get as a user. Better code, usable in more scenarios, that better supports your freedom to use it. The GPL ensures that freedom.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

I think having an open source application is useless to the end user. I mean really useless in and of itself. It's not useless. The end user does benefit from it, just not directly. They benefit from the various modifications and enhancements under copyleft that are either integrated upstream or make it to other projects that they may use. They're also unhampered by usage or redistribution restrictions that may potentially get them into legal quagmire from more zealous vendors. What really matters is standarizing the data format and providing tools to convert/export to various other formats. Data formats are software, too. Other than the spec that standardizes them, there is a reference implementation which should preferably be free. In fact, being free is crucially important here: it means any extensions to the format are sent back, instead of a vendor pulling off an "embrace, extend, extinguish" by adding non-standard features to their proprietary implementation which they then lock other software to. Also suppose that X hasn't been in development for over a year and no one is maintaining it. Then the project is orphaned. Someone may or may not step up. The good thing is they can. Also suppose X is very complicated and no one understands how the code works. And yet the code is there, so it's not insurmountable if the utility is high enough to get past the bus factor.

pessimizer 11y ago

> I think the GPL is a little outdated in that it misses the point on what really matters to ensuring the user's freedom. It doesn't have to be either/or. What the GPL gives us matters very much, what the AGPL gives us extends that farther, and maybe software freedom should be extended even farther. The problem with "liberating" data formats is that data formats would have to be standardized - which 1) potentially kills innovation, and 2) implies a level of organization and unity of purpose that software practitioners simply don't have.

quadrangle 11y ago

Perfect example of why "open source" vs "software freedom" is a real issue. GPL isn't "open source" — it isn't about source, that's an implementation detail. It's about freedom. The OSI's definition of "open source" is effectively synonymous, but you are misunderstanding the importance by using the term "open source". As an end user, software freedom means I can install something on any machine I want, run it as I want, share it with others… none of that requires source. If I want to tweak the software, that may require the source. The freedom is the freedom to change the software — whether or not the change is substantial enough to need full source to do so. Having software freedom is definitely useful to me as an end user.

copsarebastards 11y ago

I think having an open source application is useless to the end user. I mean really useless in and of itself. What really matters is that the user is alive and healthy. Say I'm dying of cancer. Two years later I die of cancer. What do I get as a user? What benefit do I get from X being open-source? Almost nothing. On the other hand, if X came with a cure for cancer, then I could get some real benefits. The only thing open source does is allow developers to gain understanding of how it works even if no one understands how it works, and then write tools to "liberate" data from itself and extensive documentation of data formats knowing that it matches the source code. But I suppose you're right, none of that is useful if you're looking for other people to solve your problems.

hasenj 11y ago
No one is claiming having an open source application will cure cancer. FSF promotes "free software" as a means of ensuring the user's freedom. When in fact, if you have a piece of free software that's old and unmaintained and the code is complicated and no one understands it, your software is by all definitions "free", but it doesn't really give you the freedom you are seeking, unless you are a developer yourself. Most of the time, you will get more freedom if the developers had documented their data formats and provided tools to liberate your data.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > No one is claiming having an open source application will cure cancer. What? I thought they were!!1! > When in fact, if you have a piece of free software that's old and unmaintained and the code is complicated and no one understands it, your software is by all definitions "free", but it doesn't really give you the freedom you are seeking, unless you are a developer yourself. Well obviously knowledge is power, but criticizing the GPL for users' lack of education is like criticizing the GPL for users dying of cancer. Actually, it's less reasonable: users are free to fix their own ignorance, while it's a bit harder to fix cancer. > Most of the time, you will get more freedom if the developers had documented their data formats and provided tools to liberate your data. ¿Porqué no los dos? I'm not sure why you seem to think that ensuring license freedom is mutually exclusive with documentation and tooling. If anything, I see a positive correlation with open source and well-documented, migratable data. Have you ever tried to pull data out of an Excel spreadsheet into a database?