Post AModd1BiFtxjlaPrBg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) Post #AMm05DQLyE9JLGEd0q by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-22T03:15:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Here's an example in the wild of an argument for what's come to be known as "shared source", proprietary software whose code is available for use or modification under specific conditions. In this case, only by individuals and cooperatives. https://social.coop/@Zee/108845391252990200#SharedSource #SoftwareFreedom
(DIR) Post #AMm30QPQZ4361rD1sW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-22T03:48:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I've been advocating for software freedom for about 20 years. I assumed the social benefit arguments for the Free Software Definition (and the OSI equivalent) would be easy to defend in discussions with people who already mostly agree with us. The benefits of fully free code for scaling up cooperative organizing just seem obvious to me. I thought that sharing the history of Open Source, and the practical problems caused early on by license proliferation, was all we needed to do.
(DIR) Post #AMm3AhtEQVNr8l3KGu by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-22T03:50:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
But Shared Source licenses and their advocates have proved to be remarkably persistent. Is the problem really that they don't know the history? Or is it that I'm stuck in the past? Is there something important I'm failing to see here?
(DIR) Post #AMm3HrHfth9uIqtbNI by icedquinn@blob.cat
2022-08-22T03:51:57.463625Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey FOSS is about stealing the corpo's trick. They invert their rules to destroy the system entirely.This crap is just people wanting to be the ruler instead (albeit promising well intentions.)
(DIR) Post #AMmGqzp9R8YQKRdhmy by mala@mastodon.social
2022-08-22T06:23:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey i'm open enough to the idea that somethung has changed, but tbh i think a lot of this is implicit knowledge that is not easily transferred. mainly it is easy to see the flaws and limitations in a model that has succeeded relatively well, without knowing about all the models that failed, or were self-limiting
(DIR) Post #AMmIHK5SozLWenO3TU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-22T06:39:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Maybe what really confuses me is how to relate to Shared Source advocates. Are they (perhaps unwittingly) the front lines in an embrace/extend/extinguish attempt on the very concept of free code, as I've seen some people claim? Or are debates with them internal to the software commons community - akin to Free Software vs. Open Source dust-ups? Are they opponents undermining our work towards software freedom for all computer users, or allies working differently from us?
(DIR) Post #AMmIOLIciFLGRZtCsa by mala@mastodon.social
2022-08-22T06:26:42Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
@strypey there's also a thing that i really need to write up about how because FLOSS looks like it prospered because of copyright, it is hard to recognize that it was intended as a way to limit the damage of software copyrightSo people think oh maybe we can solve other problems with more clever copyright tricks! which is like either no, copyright is probably not that powerful, and it is probably a bad idea on finding ways to make it that powerful
(DIR) Post #AMmO9riaUulCN0VvlI by josemanuel@qoto.org
2022-08-22T07:45:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I didn’t know about Shared Source licenses before you mentioned them, but, to me, they seem like an awfully bad idea that could potentially harm the Free Software movement by muddying the waters.“No, Shared Source is ethical because I decide that only marginalised/disadvantaged people can access it.” What’s the difference then between that and fully propietary applications? Both are about restricting access.Free Software is about NOT restricting freedoms. That’s why the GNU licenses force everyone to use and share it in the same terms that it was created. (And, incidentally, that’s why I consider Open Source to be unethical, as it allows itself to be used in proprietary software.)
(DIR) Post #AMoalguCjbVzbbfdY0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:16:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob> I expect that any highly successful ethical source projects will eventually be bought and coverted to fully proprietary.To be fair, this can and does happen to freely licensed projects too, as long as the ownership of the copyright is sufficiently concentrated. That doesn't stop a dev community from forming around the last freely licensed version and continuing to develop that independently. But this hasn't always happened in practice.
(DIR) Post #AMobdT6CHc72QGvI7E by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:26:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel > I consider Open Source to be unethical, as it allows itself to be used in proprietary softwareLGPL was designed to allow a library to be used in a proprietary program. FSF endorses the use of the Apache 2.0 license, which allows code components to be used in a proprietary program too.You seem to be using "Open Source" to mean pushover (or "permissive") licensing. But GPL and other copyleft licenses are compatible with the Open Source Definition:https://opensource.org/osd
(DIR) Post #AMobrys8wndR1JGmA4 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:28:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel> the GNU licenses force everyone to use and share it in the same terms that it was createdI think you mean*copyleft* licenses. But programs under non-copyleft licenses are also Free Software, so long as they fit the Free Software Definition:https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#fs-definition
(DIR) Post #AMocPuUpiv9JIIXrw8 by klardotsh@merveilles.town
2022-08-22T07:58:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @strypey I see the "Ethical Source" licenses as attempting to fill an interesting void in the traditional open source licenses:- MIT code doesn't make money. Period. Yes, there's exceptions, no they're not common. The odds are probably on par with making the NBA or NFL.- GPL code is complicated to deal with due to its viralityAnd neither license (or family thereof) allows someone to say "you can have a license, but you can't", which some folks, for better or worse, want.[1/2]
(DIR) Post #AMocPuvm6khSdr9Nvk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:34:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@klardotsh No Open Source license...> allows someone to say "you can have a license, but you can't"... because discrimination is specifically excluded from the Open Source Definition.> which some folks, for better or worse, want.Then what they want is a proprietary software license. Which from a software freedom perspective is unethical. It didn't work for Microsoft, I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's going to work for them.@bob
(DIR) Post #AMocPvscZxltaMgNea by klardotsh@merveilles.town
2022-08-22T08:02:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @strypey [2/2]So for someone who wants an extremely permissive license for all non-corporate entities, there's not currently, to my knowledge, any OSI-friendly license to allow it. In fact, it expressly violates pts 5 and 6So agreed: they just have different goals completely, and I think until the world's economic state and systems are less shit, this won't be an easily solveable condition. Folks (rightfully?) want a share of $MEGACORP's bazillion dollars they save from FOSS lib usage
(DIR) Post #AMocPxMR4bDMB7dhlQ by klardotsh@merveilles.town
2022-08-22T08:07:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob @strypey Tangent which I guess makes this a /3 thread instead: to this end, I think the GPL is actually extremely useful, so long as LGPL is excluded: it creates a completely separate ecosystem by, for, and of people who mutually all expect $0 to trade hands within that ecosystem, and (mostly via AGPL) make the work largely untouchable by corporate entities looking to save $."Shared source" in some respects makes such a (complex) ecosystem for either permissive *or* copyleft hobbyist uses
(DIR) Post #AMocqE67T75PcFXAzg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:39:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@klardotsh> Folks (rightfully?) want a share of $MEGACORP's bazillion dollarsHey so do I, but I'm under no illusions that using a novel proprietary license is going to get me a share. How could it? Corporations are nervous enough of GPL software, they're hardly going to take on the legal liability of using software under confusing new proprietary licenses. They'll just switch to using a program that is under a familiar libre license, or if necessary develop one.@bob
(DIR) Post #AMod4xa99iasjlbY3M by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:42:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@klardotsh> it creates a completely separate ecosystem by, for, and of people who mutually all expect $0 to trade handsHuh? There are a number of developers making a living off GPL and AGPL software. The Loomio co-op and the lead dev of Mastodon are two examples that come to mind. @bob
(DIR) Post #AModd1BiFtxjlaPrBg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:48:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@klardotsh> "Shared source" in some respects makes such a (complex) ecosystem for either permissive *or* copyleft hobbyist usesWhat, you mean like ...> a completely separate ecosystem by, for, and of people who mutually all expect $0 to trade hands@bob
(DIR) Post #AMoeGn0IPY5HMI2Yl6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T09:55:44Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel> Shared Source licenses ... could potentially harm the Free Software movement by muddying the watersThis is my concern. Up until recently, if people saw source code published online, they could safely presume it was under a license compatible with their software freedoms (as expressed in the FSD/OSD). Shared Source means they now need to check for commercial use restrictions and morality clauses (eg only the vaccinated can use this code).#SharedSource
(DIR) Post #AMoenblnCQe04buDBI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T10:01:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel IMHO using copyright to push your own morality on other people is kind of authoritarian. Imagine the situation reversed; a vaccine licensed to be accessible only by people who release any software they are involved with writing under a Free Software license. Most people can intuitively see that this would be unethical. But for some reason doing exactly the same thing with morality licenses on software is fine?
(DIR) Post #AMof1OxNdQwIO8u2Rk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-08-23T10:02:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel IMHO morality licenses are pretty sinister. Using copyright to push your own morality on other people is kind of authoritarian. Imagine the situation reversed; a vaccine licensed to be accessible only by people who release any software they are involved with writing under a Free Software license. Most people can intuitively see that this would be unethical. But for some reason doing exactly the same thing with morality licenses on software is fine?