Post AOdWsJWpnjphrHaYWe by w96k@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by w96k@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #AOdUG7V1sRI1ddP7aa by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:25:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
After learning more and more about anarchism I've been starting to think that GPL approach to licensing is a bit too forcible approach to solve copyright problem. It looks a lot like socialists do making people believe that they will use government to demolish the government, they will use copyright to demolish copyright. So philosophically speaking there is a chance that public domain might be a better solution while copyright exists. GPL is good solely on forcing others to free their users.
(DIR) Post #AOdV5G0rz2JkoMgJKC by wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:35:09Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k It's not your fellows you have to force; it's the monopolistic corporations. GPL'd software is really hard for corporations to use to trap people. I think of it as a pragmatic tradeoff.
(DIR) Post #AOdVZj6APPxvhogiLA by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:39:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wizzwizz4 Agree. The problem here is that by trying to defend people from copyright you are involved in copyright and public domain is that kind of thing, that tries to be out of copyright (or at least it looks like it is more out of copyright than different libre licenses). The point I want to make is: is it okay to use the same thing that forces and limits software use to free users?
(DIR) Post #AOdVa0qsP0Qilbfl0S by iska@mstdn.starnix.network
2022-10-16T20:40:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k public domain software is easily patent trolled, fedora removed it from repos for that reason. :cirno_sip: I think GPL is a good compromise, in a copyright-free world everything would effectively be copyleft.
(DIR) Post #AOdVameof9It26Ons8 by wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:40:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k What does it prevent, restrict or limit?
(DIR) Post #AOdVpdjc7RNphgj8iW by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:43:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wizzwizz4 It restricts mostly from using proprietary stuff practically speaking. You can check out libre distros from gnu website and see that distros devs try hard "defending" users from proprietary and semi proprietary or kind of nasty software. That is kind of limitation "for good". The bad thing is that it is kind of bad, that someone decides for you what is good and what is bad.
(DIR) Post #AOdWBayv2HJBXHM51k by wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:47:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k No, users of free software are perfectly allowed to use proprietary software. GNU (the organisation) prefers they don't; that's a different matter entirely. Look at the recent Debian non-free firmware vote; the people arguing over that have said more, and better, than I can fit in this toot.But free software doesn't prevent you from using non-free software.
(DIR) Post #AOdWCgAbENShuuKr2G by wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:47:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k No, users of free software are perfectly allowed to use proprietary software. GNU (the organisation) prefers they don't; that's a different matter entirely. Look at the recent Debian non-free firmware vote; the people arguing over that have said more, and better, than I can fit in this toot.But free software doesn't prevent you from using non-free software. That's partly the point of it.
(DIR) Post #AOdWF4ksnKQMkIRv8a by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:48:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@skquinn Sadly there are examples like Google's Android, that proves my point a bit. GPL doesn't defend end users that much. Companies still can do it hard to get sources, modify system and so on by hiding right information and not saying much about libre philosophy. It is still better than complete proprietary, but such software sucks.Also sadly there is no regulation for scanning all proprietary software to GPL'ed bits of code used. It is hard to detect "stealing" GPL'ed code.
(DIR) Post #AOdWhKlqqICsWeNQsy by wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:53:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k @skquinn Lots of Google's Android software is proprietary. The GPL parts are pretty easy to get the source code for, and that has resulted in some amazing things, like https://www.android-x86.org/.Also? It's actually easier to detect GPL code in proprietary binaries than you'd think, and there are organisations (e.g. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html) that go out there and put a stop to it.
(DIR) Post #AOdWsJWpnjphrHaYWe by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:55:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wizzwizz4 Debian is not free distro according to gnu.org website. Debian has many problems with libre things in general. I'm speaking mostly about fully free systems like Hyperbola, that so free, that they tend to limit users from their own will in some ways by removing some packages, they can make harder to do specific things, because they think they know better. I can try to use them to understand what I'm talking about. I guess It is more general problem not related to our topic that much.
(DIR) Post #AOdX4xrreAUgRXSQ9Q by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T20:57:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wizzwizz4 @skquinn I know about organization, but I don't know the ways to detect GPL'ed code in proprietary software myself. I can't delegate everything to non-profit organization and hope they will do all the work.
(DIR) Post #AOdXOgbVXj5ygyD7x2 by wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T21:01:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html#Debian is just one of the reasons I have a problem with GNU, the organisation.Free software is supposed to be about user freedom, but they treat it like an either-or thing. Which – from an integrity point of view – it is, but their "certified completely free" systems still contain non-free subcomponents that could (in theory) compromise the integrity of the overall system.So they're just being pointlessly arbitrary, sitting on a high horse and looking down on us.
(DIR) Post #AOdXVCh98tehxRxKpU by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T21:01:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@iska Can you check the presence of SQlite, CMUCL and SBCL in Fedora? It is the software I know that is under public domain.
(DIR) Post #AOdXt8aO4U12AECtKC by iska@mstdn.starnix.network
2022-10-16T21:06:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96k I don't know, I just remember the news.
(DIR) Post #AOdY00TMdPWH1oCIWO by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T21:07:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(DIR) Post #AOdZ1VLLRZOx11iz7A by gamayun@mastodon.social
2022-10-16T21:19:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@w96kI don't think GPL was ever anything more than a "clever hack" as RMS would put it, turning this particular legal weapon (software copyright / licensing) against those who forged it.But then it seems to have gotten the free software movement lost in the woods fighting over licensing, rather than fighting for recognition of the rights/freedoms it espouses...
(DIR) Post #AOdZoRzegeOaodv1Ae by lxo@gnusocial.net
2022-10-16T21:17:41Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
there's probably a misunderstanding or exaggeration there. we wish to avoid inducing users to install nonfree software and give up their freedoms. in most cases, that amounts to refraining from directing users to shoot themselves in the foot. in rare circumstances, when the machinery involved in loading and running nonfree software is deeply intertwined with requesting it to be installed, the only way to avoid the undesirable inducement is to also disable by default the ability to load and run. this is the case of GNU Linux-libre, but the fact that the ability to load and run blobs is disabled is not a feature, it's a bug, but one that AFAICT is impossible to fix without bringing the inducement back. that's unfortunate, but it's not terrible: users who wish to install and run blobs are allowed to reenable that feature, and have it behave as they wish.
(DIR) Post #AOdb8UFo5lKNZYajSa by lxo@gnusocial.net
2022-10-16T21:07:58Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
the problem of copyright is that it denies freedoms by default. copyleft relaxes the by-default prohibitions, so that freedoms are respected. what's not granted by strong copyleft licenses is power to deny freedom from others. denying freedom from others is not a freedom, it's not even desirable. so allowing copyright's prohibitions to abuse others to stand is not a bad thing, it's even desirableof course, if we had laws that codified that denying others' freedoms is prohibited, we wouldn't need copyleft any more, and then copyright would probably be rendered useless and cease to exist.
(DIR) Post #AOdiNZr4FVxKxzA8cC by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T23:03:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo thanks for your answers. Of course I agree and I use Linux Libre on all available machines and use fully Libre distros like Trisquel and Guix. The initial point I was trying to make (philosophically speaking): is it okay to use such as bad mechanism as copyright to fight copyright itself. Of course I like the outcome. What I don't like by using copyright we make copyright legitimate, we become the part of a bad thing.But this is a pure theoretical question.
(DIR) Post #AOdjBHG5fFeFlnZ7rs by w96k@fosstodon.org
2022-10-16T23:13:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo thanks for your answers. Of course I agree and I use Linux Libre and fully Libre distros like Trisquel and Guix on all available machines. The initial point I was trying to make (philosophically speaking): is it okay to use such as bad mechanism as copyright to fight copyright itself. Of course I like the outcome. What I don't like is that because we use copyright we make copyright legitimate, we become the part of a bad thing.But this is a pure theoretical question.
(DIR) Post #AOeKl4MCnzQ4UCM8Aa by lxo@gnusocial.net
2022-10-17T01:43:20Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
I tried to address that philosophical point, maybe I didn't succeed. allow me to try to rephrase.copyright has a bad side (conflicting with essential freedoms by default, such as sharing, improving, controlling), but also a not-so-bad side: by default, it deprives third parties from the power to deprive their downstreams' essential freedoms. through copyleft, rms figured out how holders can grant the freedoms back, while withholding the power to abuse, neutralizing the bad and using the not-so-bad for good, respecting freedom without denying freedom, and without granting others power to deny freedoms. it places the boundaries exactly where they should be: without constraining freedom, and without empowering others to constrain others' freedom. so, once copyleft is applied to a work, none of the evil from copyright remains, and some good surfaces. alas, for nonfree works, the most visible effect is the abuse of power over others. I hope some day we legislate away the right to take others' freedom away, then we'll have no reason to hesitate on dropping copyright on the floor