Conversation

Notices

1. Christine Lemmer-Webber (cwebber@octodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:00:33 UTC Christine Lemmer-Webber

   I'm seeing a lot of calls for re-examination of FOSS values. In a sense I agree largely: I've myself been arguing for critical re-examination and re-articulation of FOSS principles. However, I see a lot of people calling for things that have been shown to be broken (the non-composability of CC *-NC and *-ND licenses are an example). That's making me fairly nervous that we're going to undo a lot of the structures that have allowed for collaboration and enter an era of confusion.

   • Adonay Felipe Nogueira repeated this.
   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:02:56 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @cwebber As someone who refuses to work on non viral livcenses like GPL and the related CC licenses I agree. I'm all for fixing the viral nature but am worried people will make it worse. I'm happy to just use apache or MIT until someone solves it.

   • Alexandre Oliva (lxoliva@social.libreplanetbr.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:15:57 UTC Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     you couldn't tell before that this was part of the plan, could you? :-(
     Adonay Felipe Nogueira repeated this.
   • dave (dthompson@toot.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:17:23 UTC dave

     in reply to

     @cwebber yeah this is very concerning. the GPL is still great! the 4 freedoms are still essential! I don't want to see this situation taken advantage of by people that want to dilute free software until it is completely destroyed by the corporate open source and proprietary "open source as in you can see the source but that's it" factions.

     Adonay Felipe Nogueira repeated this.
   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:43:27 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @zig

     In my view your trying to use a legal solution to address a social problem. In my eyes that never works and itself is doomed to failure. Licenses can not enforce morality IMO.

     @sheogorath @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:43:52 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @cwebber

     I certainly agree with that

     @zig @sheogorath

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:51:38 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     While I'd still view the parity license as viral by nature, and wouldnt personally use it, I do see it as a improvement over AGPL. I would not even contribute to software that has any form of viral aspects to its license.

     That said I also agree that it is not really a legal document and unlikely to standup to well in court. Which for me adds to why I'd personally avoid it.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 13:58:55 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     I'm not sure the problems with it are entierly why id refuse to contibute to software that uses them.

     Obviously virality of licenses has caused hosts of issues with open source projects in the past. Namely if you want to pull in dependencies or even just talk to it on the same computer it can cause hell for legal departments or personal legal issues. In the end it presents a barrier where I feel one does not need to exist and can be rather damaging.

     My personal issue goes well beyond the technical ones though. Basically when I say free I mean free, as in freedom.

     If someone wants to write some software that uses my own, and then they want to make money specifically off their own software, regardless of if it uses mine as a library, Why should I care. Making money isnt evil, and your only close sourcing your own contributions/modifications, so by my own moral standards it would be wrong of me to object. But I also find that if you try to control the behaviors of others that is itself not a character trait I see as positive out of the gate.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 14:18:30 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     No, I disagree. I am specifically and explicitly talking about user freedom, it just so happens that companies and developers are part of that group.

     I as a developer (even under the GPL) and quite free to develop the software however I wish with little regard to the license. It is only if a user wishes to use what I have done as well (download a copy from me) that the licenses get invoked, and thus their freedom I care about.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 14:29:11 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     I dont see that as protection of the user or giving the user freedom at all, it is taking away their freedom, the freedom of the user to download modified applications if they want to (even when it doesnt provide the source code).

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 14:34:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     But he can't. If i as a developer modified the code and do so by bringing in non-0compatible license code, while I am a developer and most free to do that and run the code for my own personal uses with no concern, **users** are not allowed to download and use copies of the software I would otherwise be happy to share.

     It isnt reducing my freedom as a developer, im plenty free to use the modified closed-source software. It is only the user-base that is not allowed to have a copy.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 14:46:11 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     No your missing the point. As I said if the software i created pulls in a non-compatible license or is closed-sourced then NO a user **can not** down load it because no download can be provided since the source code can not be provided.

     As such it limits the **users** freedom since access to any such software is denied to the user, despitethe developer being perfectly free to use and have access to it.

     The fact the the GPL limits user freedom by denying them the freedom to download the above mentioned software, since it can not be provided to the user, is exactly the point.

     Limiting the developers freedom to distribute the software in synonymous with limiting the users freedom to obtain such software.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 14:47:12 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     No your missing the point. As I said if the software i created pulls in a non-compatible license or is closed-sourced then NO a user **can not** down load it because no download can be provided since the source code can not be provided under the GPL.

     As such it limits the **users** freedom since access to any such software is denied to the user, despitethe developer being perfectly free to use and have access to it.

     The fact the the GPL limits user freedom by denying them the freedom to download the above mentioned software, since it can not be provided to the user, is exactly the point.

     Limiting the developers freedom to distribute the software in synonymous with limiting the users freedom to obtain such software.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 14:54:45 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     If you can be sued then no, you can't, legally, offer it. I take that as a moot point and not a valid counter argument.

     It prevents the access of users by making it legal for such access to exist. There is really no way to talk our way around this obvious point, user freedom is limited as they do not have access to software they otherwise would have.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 15:15:50 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     No I wouldnt say that would be a correct analogy. A more accurate analogy would be the following:

     Some chef sometime int he past wrote a recipie for a delicious meal, he put a note at the bottom that says "only people who provide a list of ingredients (allergy information included in that) are allowed to cook this food and share it with others".

     Then if someone makes a meal based ont he recipie (and with their own modifications of course) and uses a can of food that does not itself list the ingredients, so he is unable to list the ingredients as a result, is therefore in violation.

     The GPL would basically mean that such a chef is free to make the above meal for himself and enjoy it and eat it, but other people would **not** be allowed to try his food without it being illegal.

     @zig @cwebber

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 15:32:07 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Sheogorath 🦊
     • zig 🌑🌱

     @sheogorath

     That is not a distinction, if the food can not be shared then by extention of that fact they are not allowed to try it.

     Even from a legal perspective it is the same. Whoever actually facilitates the person trying the food is the one illegal, it doesnt default to the chef or the consumer.

     The reason you see it as the developer is just because in most cases if there is a violation the link which provided access to the software (which wasnt allowed) is most likely provided by the developer. However if this access is provided by someone else, anyone, even if the user themselves is the one sharing it without the authors permission, then the act of sharing it is illegal even for the user.

     @zig @cwebber

   • Adonay Felipe Nogueira (adfeno@ecodigital.social)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Sep-2019 15:45:24 UTC Adonay Felipe Nogueira

     in reply to

     @cwebber I agree with you.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 19-Sep-2019 06:57:26 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     @cwebber As someone who refuses to work on viral licenses like GPL and the related CC licenses I agree. I'm all for fixing the viral nature but am worried people will make it worse. I'm happy to just use apache or MIT until someone solves it.