Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Free Software Foundation (FSF) - 2014 Giving Guide

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2   3 
Free Software Foundation (FSF) - 2014 Giving Guide
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/2014/

Essentially they recommend free (as in freedom) alternatives to popular, non-free sludge to be given during the holiday season (and any other time). Debate or discussion about the list or free software or free computing in general (libre, not gratis) is welcomed.

Meanwhile, here are some specific reasons not to use Windows, and one really good one to not use Windows 10. Debate or discussion about non-free software is welcome too, but please include the ethics in the discussions; don't just say "X is better because it Just Works(tm)," etc..

BTW, if you join the FSF they will send you a neat little membership card with a USB flash memory containing a fully free (libre) GNU+Linux distribution (rewritable, of course). I forget the details so check out their Web site if you're interested... I think it requires a minimum donation, but it's not a huge one. It's nothing special, but honestly it looks pretty cool in the photographs. I happened to join a few weeks ago, for ethical and political reasons, as well as the neat membership card (which I am anxiously awaiting).

Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
avatar

bamccaig said:

if you join the FSF they will send you a neat little membership card with a...

Sounds like "join us, we have cookies".

Freedom is good but the FSF and their GPL do not actually promote real freedom. In fact, the GPL is quite restrictive in what you are permitted to do, so there is no true, real freedom to use GPL'ed software in whatever way that feels right according to ones own vision/truth of things (just a reminder here that I do not believe in absolute truths and I claim that any "truth" is entirely subjective and even that is of course not an absolute truth ;) ).

Also, the general attitude of the FSF seems to be quite "anti-proprietary" which seems like a logical consequence, considering how they think of themselves as being "pro-freedom".

Freedom alone is not enough though and besides, as already said, the GPL does not really promote total freedom.
When it comes to ethics (they claim to be ethical programmers), it is my opinion that one of the most important matters there, next to freedom, is peace. But their "anti" attitude and their competitive way of thinking (competing "against" proprietary software as evident here ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html ) where they speak about the importance of giving them an "advantage" over proprietary software by considering to put more libraries under the GPL instead of the LGPL) does not promote peace either.

I do not think it is possible to liberate the people from the shackles of capitalism/proprietary anything/software by restricting freedom and by competing like that. Competition over nothing (arbitray and artificial concepts of value (like financial wealth for example)) is what created the mess the world is in in the first place. Sticking to a competitive attitude is not pro-peace and not pro-freedom.

It is in fact vaguely reminiscent of the behaviour of some "religious" organizations who claim to be unconditionally loving/x-ing Whatever-ians but then exclude everyone from that "unconditional" x-ing who is not "one of them" and thus encourages separation and competition instead of promoting inclusion and cooperation.

So there seems to be no real freedom and there seems to be no real peace in their ideology. The "free" in Free Software Foundation therefore appears to be a bit hypocritical as the separate themselves and lock you into the GPL if you base anything on their stuff.

So well, I do not want it to sound like I do not like the FSF at all. The basic idea is really going in the right direction but it is not going far enough for my own understanding of freedom and peace and for what I believe would benefit mankind more in the long run (inclusion and cooperation, freedom and peace).

Quote:

I happened to join a few weeks ago, for ethical and political reasons

Well... I find their claims of ethical behavior questionable/incomplete as elaborated above, which is why I will not join just yet but I certainly do like free software. :)

If only they would use a sane license... :-X

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Dennis said:

Freedom is good but the FSF and their GPL do not actually promote real freedom. In fact, the GPL is quite restrictive in what you are permitted to

Indeed. People assume its all about unicorns and rainbows. It is not. It's about freedom to modify the software, and being able to use those modifications up or downstream. There's a reason its called "Copyleft". It is not about "Lets do whatever the fuck we want with this". If you want that, go with something like a paired down BSD, MIT, or Zlib license or even a straight up wtfpl.

Quote:

If only they would use a sane license... :-X

It is a sane license. You just don't happen to agree with what it is trying to do.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
avatar

If people assume it is all "about unicorns and rainbows" then that is because of how they portray themselves towards the world by claiming to be the "ethical programmer good guys" while everyone else (especially programmers who survive on selling their precious lifetime developing proprietary software to sustain themselves) is basically evil and should go die in a fire.

Yes, they do not actually say that but it is not hard to get that impression when people see how they campaign against proprietary software (I am not saying that they do not have a point with some proprietary stuff being evil, like all the spyware stuff for example) and how they paint a picture of their shiny, magical, clean free software as the only reasonable option when it comes to using computers.

Their license does not agree with what they claim to be their prime ideology ("free as in freedom"). By what definition of sane is that mismatch of concepts between ideology and license, well... sane? One might say it fits their definition of freedom and serves their purpose, so may be called sane within their worldview, within their truth and fits their goals but there it is again, the exclusion/separation problem, which by definition does not seem to agree with the concept of real freedom.

So yes, I do like the way the GPL grants and ensures certain aspects of freedom(which are good) while at the same time limiting other aspects of freedom. Those limits are what earns my dislike for it.

I use a lot of software which is released under the GPL and I am very happy this software exists but I will avoid using any libraries/licenses which put limits on certain aspects of freedom like the GPL does.

Like I said, their basic approach to freedom seems ok but it is incomplete and in parts it is anti-freedom.

P.S.: I do not like the implication of "peace, inclusion, cooperation and freedom" being associated with "rainbows and unicorns". Unicorns are creatures of fiction and rainbows, even as observable realities, are commonly associated with fantasy and unrealistic daydreaming. Peace, freedom, inclusion and cooperation however, as being working and not purely fictional concepts, hold the potential of making the world a better place for everyone to live in and must not be lightly brushed off or implied to be as invalid as "rainbows and unicorns". Just because we live in a fucked up world, does not mean we have to accept it as the only possible reality.

update/editAs I read more about GNU/Linux and the FSF, the GPL, historical documents about its development, I get the feeling my perception/understanding of them is incomplete as well which currently does leave me in a state where I can not even say whether I truely like it or not. Perhaps a bit of both, which is odd.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I guess it's just down to you wanting complete freedom to do whatever you want with code, and people who like the GPL who would prefer the code stays open, no matter what.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

You can also donate to the EFF.

Trent Gamblin
Member #261
April 2000
avatar

Or do something important like feed a starving child or family.....

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I've already posted a damn good reason not to use Windows 10, their file level DRM which is integrated into the file open and save dialogs so Windows controls what files all programs can access and save. It's the anti-whistleblower DRM.

And on a practical level, if you're working at a company, you better pray to God their sysadmin knows how to set-up Microsoft's newest security system because if you're in the real world 99% of sysadmins don't know how to setup security permissions to save their lives. Which means you won't be able to download a driver... you won't be able to copy a driver over the network... and when you plug a flash drive or portable hard drive? Too bad! The sysadmin didn't think that was useful enough to warrant the security risk! All you have to do now is submit a support ticket to an already over-worked IT department to plug in your freaking USB key... they'll get back to you within a week.

But as for:

Quote:

It only gets worse with time. Windows 10 requires users to give permission for total snooping, including their files, their commands, their text input, and their voice input.

That's stupid as hell. The preview version of Windows 10 has that license because it's a damned beta test so they can learn, track, and fix bugs by seeing a clear picture of everything you did. Any of our beta database products would be the same way so we'd have an idea of what the moron client did to break our product. It even says when you download Windows 10 not to use it for anything important, or sensitive!

Or do something important like feed a starving child or family.....

Basically.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Elias
Member #358
May 2000

Bamccaig: What's your member number? Mine is 10922 :)

--
"Either help out or stop whining" - Evert

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

I believe in free(dom) and free(beer) software but I think the GPL is a bit insane. The LGPL is a little more logical to me, and useful, but the GPL turns me off so much. I don't want to use GPL'ed software in any of my projects dare it infect the rest of my code.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

dare it infect the rest of my code.

Yeah, thank God Python isn't GPL. They want you to package it with your stuff which makes it insanely useful.

GPL also falls apart in one area of modern times because it doesn't qualify or understand "software as a service." It's not mentioned at all.

For one example I ran into: So there's this GPL game, Space Station 13. And everyone hosts their own version of the source code to run the their server. Well, one guy hosts but doesn't distribute the code. He's not giving back to the community, after making a successful server of the 99% of code he didn't write. But here's the problem: by design, the game server solely runs on one computer, and dumb clients connect to it. Is he violating GPL?

There's a modified GPL that specifically includes SaaS, but I don't recall the exact name. (Probably AGPL?)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

So if I'm quite clever and system("gcc main.cpp -o main"); in my project, then the whole thing needs to be open source?

What?! Lilypond is GPL?!

Lilypond said:

Preamble

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

... whell fahk. >:(>:(

Other than that I don't see very many "pure" GPL projects of much consequence. I would much rather have Photoshop/Illustrator over Gimp/Inkscape any day. I would even go so far to say the reason Gimp/Inkscape is still far behind is because it's GPL. If it wasn't, I could see other companies adopting the software and contributing to their development. I think non-copyleft projects might eventually supersede GPL.

My position would be ardently anti-GPL. I love the concept, but we're not there yet. A truly "free" software would allow its programmers to benefit in their own way. The programmer might wish to use it to earn a sustainable living and/or provide for her family. What if this person was in a 3rd world country and was able build software to lift their community out of poverty? Not with GPL.

--
Visit CLUBCATT.com for cat shirts, cat mugs, puzzles, art and more <-- coupon code ALLEGRO4LIFE at checkout and get $3 off any order of 3 or more items!

AllegroFlareAllegroFlare DocsAllegroFlare GitHub

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

So if I'm quite clever and system("gcc main.cpp -o main"); in my project, then the whole thing needs to be open source?

That's an interesting aside. GCC has a run-time library exception to GPL so the products it compiles don't need to be GPL, but GCC itself is covered under GPL. But does using GCC from another program invoke GPL? If so, then if you even had Python (which is open) and a third-party library that translated to C, and then compiled that C at run-time with GCC? Does that mean you have to use GPL?

What have these free software foundation lunatics done! We can't tell if we're infringing or not.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I have some sw under the actual GPL. my minecraft tools. but only the enduser code, the libraries will likely all be under LGPL or Zlib. LuaGlue is Zlib. It's so cool I want everyone to use it ;D even commercial products. ;D.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Elias
Member #358
May 2000

GPL is astoundingly simple. Don't use the code together with proprietary code and you're fine. Most of my own stuff is GPL - I don't care about people making money off my work - but I want to be able to know about features and bug fixes someone makes, and I want to apply those myself without having to ask permission. With proprietary or something like BSD or zlib license that would not be guaranteed.
And I'm very much against the idea of proprietary code in general. So as far as I'm concerned GPL is close to perfect.

--
"Either help out or stop whining" - Evert

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Elias said:

GPL is astoundingly simple. Don't use the code together with proprietary code and you're fine.

So don't use it with anything in the real-world? And what constitutes use? If I use a GPL media player in a non-GPL operating system, does that explode the license? What if I use a non-GPL mouse to click on it in Linux? Or view it in a non-GPL monitor, to stream video over from non-GPL router, over my non-GPL internet service?

Sure, I went a little exaggerated with my examples. But when it comes to some software, there are clear cases between "output" and "usage." A GPL OpenOffice Calc has an interface, but it outputs excel files. Anything that touches the interface would be GPL, and the files are safe for non-GPL work use. But other software isn't as clear! What about a commandline tool? If I use cat, anywhere in my program, I'm I required to open source my entire program unless I only use the results of cat?

Clearly, I'm showing my ignorance of the subject. But my point is that if I don't understand it after all these years, there are tons of others who don't. 90% of the time, all you hear is the quip "Use GPL for everything." but never a clear, cogent breakdown of what that's going to constitute. Hence, the SaaS loophole controversy that I mentioned before.

And then you get these gigantic, unwieldly legalize "license compatibility charts"

{"name":"350px-Quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.svg.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e175f5851a1b2c825095ec059ef4d204.png","w":350,"h":404,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e175f5851a1b2c825095ec059ef4d204"}350px-Quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.svg.png

{"name":"gpl_compatibility.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/c\/3cd113dd53f9fe34d96ed1619d2e829f.png","w":881,"h":811,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/c\/3cd113dd53f9fe34d96ed1619d2e829f"}gpl_compatibility.png

And every damn one is filled with exceptions--even between other GPL licenses! Basically, the comment "GPL is simple" is actually deceptive. Because if you ever need to interface with something that isn't the exact version of GPL your using, then it becomes just as complex or more complex than any traditional license.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Elias said:

Bamccaig: What's your member number? Mine is 10922 :)

Good question! I'm not sure. Their Web sites are undergoing maintenance that is apparently due to migrating to a new system. I think somebody goofed. :-[ It might be 84504 according to a URL in an initial E-mail, but that's just guessing that the URL corresponds to member numbers. I haven't gotten my membership card yet or anything in the mail.

GPL also falls apart in one area of modern times because it doesn't qualify or understand "software as a service." It's not mentioned at all.

The FSF opposes software as a service because you can't trust it. Even if it appears to be running free software, there's no way to know what it is really doing. You therefore should not trust your data to it. In general, SaaS is very convenient, but that comes at the expense of your own freedoms, as well as privacy and usually security.

But here's the problem: by design, the game server solely runs on one computer, and dumb clients connect to it. Is he violating GPL?

What are you even talking about? Your use of "one computer" sounds like proprietary EULA bullshit. Whether or not he's violating the GPL would depend on whether he's making changes to the source code and refusing to share them. Otherwise, I see no conflicts with his use of the software.

Chris, you're starting to sound like an extremist Feminist. Please calm down. What most of you seem to be missing is that the FSF stands for total software freedom. In particular, there are 4 core freedoms that Richard Stallman identified and that the GPL serves to preserve and protect: use, distribute, modify, and modify + distribute. The key to the GPL is that the software is guaranteed to preserve these freedoms even after somebody else makes a change to it or redistributes it. Whereas the more permissive licenses that some of you regard as being more "free" allow somebody to make an amazing modification and not only refuse to share the modified version in source or binary form, but to even release the modified version under new terms that restrict your freedoms any way they see fit! Where is your freedom now? You don't have any.

Imagine this: somebody develops a brilliant little piece of free software and distributes it under a permissive license. It's great. Everybody starts using it. Free software operating systems are developed around it as a little piece of core technology. Some third party comes along and makes an improvement to it. It's much better so everybody adopts that and begins to base all of the distributions on that. Time passes. The original source by the original author is long gone. Said third party now decides to trigger a trap it had set years ago. They revoke the permissive license terms and revoke all of your rights. You can use the software, but you can't modify it, you can't redistribute it without permission (i.e., paying a fee), and you don't get to see the source code.

Do they have the right to do that? Depends on the permissive license you're using. Generally I'd say "probably". They may not be able to restrict the original software, but everything that they wrote and own they technically control. Unless the license was worded carefully they may well be able to change the terms of use of their software modifications, or maybe even the entire bundle from them. Good luck trying to sort out what was the original author's work. Good luck trying to update it to modern times with all of that bit rot.

The GPL and related licenses exist to protect user freedoms. That is what matters to the FSF most. The user. The developer doesn't need protection from his own software. Of course, the GPL license is carefully worded to protect the developer from the user as well. In Richard Stallman's world there are not distinct groups of "developers" and "users". There are only users. Everybody is a user. Users are the ones that make modifications and redistribute them. We are the users. When he was at MIT that is how it worked. Somebody wrote a piece of software, somebody else made a change to it, and everybody shared it with each other and all were merry! If I have my stories straight, Richard Stallman used to modify the printers in the labs at MIT to report back to users when their print jobs were completed. A function that the original printers didn't support. They hacked it in. And they were allowed to do so because at the time the software industry was not as it is today. And it's that community sharing and everybody benefiting that he is fighting for.

Compare that to what we have now. Microsoft or Apple or Adobe or Sun write some software behind closed doors with the greedy objective of making money. They don't care about writing good software. They care about exploiting you and I, the users, for as much profit as possible. We are at their mercy. Their software contains misfeatures and malicious features to harm us, spy on us, and generally depend entirely on them for all of our computing needs. Despite you possibly having the skills and experience to fix a problem in the software that you're using, it is damn hard to do it without source code, and even if you had the source code you aren't legally allowed to. There is no community here. There is only greed and selfishness.

There is absolutely no reason that a person cannot make a living developing free software. Obviously it won't work with the narrow-minded business model of proprietary vendors. Their business model is about fucking the user over. Is that what kind of developer you are? Then why in the fuck would the Free Software Foundation care about you?

As for whether or not something like system("gcc ..."); violates the GPL the exact legal definition may be hard to come by so see a lawyer. That's no different than you'd have to do if you were using proprietary software, or even one of those so called permissive licenses. That said, from what I have read, the general position of the FSF and Richard Stallman would be:

  • Does your software depend specifically on GPL code to perform its major function (e.g., gcc)?

  • Can the software perform it's main duties without the GPL code?

  • Can the software use non-GPL code in its place (e.g., a different C compiler)?

In general, if the software cannot function without invoking GPL code in some way then the FSF position is that your software must also be GPL'd. That is because for all intents and purposes, you're trying to get around the license terms with a dishonest loophole. Technicalities aside, the GPL software is still part of your software.

However, if your software functions mainly without the invocation of the GPL code, or if non-GPL code can be used in place of the GPL code, then the FSF might agree that your code does not have to be GPL'd. If you have any doubts, they would be more than happy to give you their opinion on the matter. Contact them. It is my understanding that they have legal consultants for just such an occasion. Also, if I'm not getting my wires crossed, if you believe that your GPL'd project has been used against the terms of the GPL then the FSF and its legal team will assist you in going after them free of charge. In general, not for royalties or the like as the propretiary equivalent would. They would instead fight to make the violator GPL their own software or otherwise come to an agreement that is considered fair.

I pretty much GPL all of the code that I own and explicitly license. That is because I believe in software freedoms, and want my software to remain free for everyone. If somebody wants to use my software in a proprietary product they could always contact me for explicit permission and I'd consider it then. I'd really rather they GPL'd their code too and found some business model to work with the GPL instead of against it.

Everybody that opposes the GPL is insane. Linus Torvalds doesn't really care about software freedom. The Linux kernel even has non-free binary blobs in it now. What if Linux disappeared tomorrow? What would you run your software on? Proprietary garbage that spies on you.

Oh man, do you want an idea of how serious it is? See here.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

What are you even talking about? Your use of "one computer" sounds like proprietary EULA .

You didn't really bother to read what I wrote then. GPL SS13 is a game that runs on top of BYOND. The BYOND game system solves the "networking issue" by only having one server do everything for a running game instance. It takes everyone's inputs, it sends all graphics, and dumb terminals connect to it and forward their keystrokes to it. Anyone can host a server.

The obvious ambiguity here is that when one guy forks GPL code, modifies it, and then refuses to publish his changes... is he violating GPL since he's not distributing the game to begin with? The game is effectively SaaS. Nobody has access to the binaries, so nobody is entitled to the source code for those binaries. He can run one of the most popular servers off 99% of other people's GPL labor to set himself ahead of the pack, start a monopoly for server popularity which draws in more coders under his server, which makes it even more ahead of the pack. And it's exactly what happened until the kid got busted for the unrelated charge of Paypal fraud.

Quote:

Chris, you're starting to sound like an extremist Feminist.

That's not a very good way to get me to listen.

Quote:

Linus Torvalds doesn't really care about software freedom.

I'm very likely to take Linus Torvald's opinion over yours.

Quote:

total software freedom

Exactly. FSF stands for FSF's ideas of freedom. Not mine, no, they don't want me to come up with my own ideas of what's okay. They want everything open, and they want to force people who don't think that way to have to use GPL when they touch other products using GPL. Why do you think so many people are moving away from GPL? Because forcing a license is a form of aggression. You are taking away my freedom to control how my software is used under the assumption that I'm going to abuse that freedom against my users. And that's insanity.

Advocate open software. That's great! Convince people to open their products. But forcing people to open their products is only going to get people to refuse to interface with GPL products in the first place.

You seem to think I'm 100% against you, GPL, and the FSF. I'm not, not even remotely. But that doesn't mean I cannot have criticisms.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

The obvious ambiguity here is that when one guy forks GPL code, modifies it, and then refuses to publish his changes... is he violating GPL since he's not distributing the game to begin with?

He isn't distributing it, so he is not violating the GPLv2 license. This is why the GPLv3 was created, so modifications on software NOT distributed directly also infringes. It's meant to protect against big service providers providing their modified software preinstalled, or I think against services like Tivo who modify software but lock it down on their devices through things like the DMCA? Might not be the same clause.

Quote:

You are taking away my freedom to control how my software is used under the assumption that I'm going to abuse that freedom against my users. And that's insanity.

There's one solution, DON'T use GPL code in your programs. No one is forcing you to use it. It's incorrect to say the GPL infects.

Quote:

Why do you think so many people are moving away from GPL?

I don't think actual people are moving away from it. But business with business interest are not using it for the majority of cases, though some do.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
avatar

bamccaig said:

I pretty much GPL all of the code that I own and explicitly license. That is because I believe in software freedoms, and want my software to remain free for everyone.

I pretty much MIT(license) all of the code that I own and explicitly license (though, all my code was already available openly but unlicensed before). That is because I believe in freedom.

Quote:

Everybody that opposes the GPL is insane.

Prove it.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

No one is forcing you to use it.

Isn't that the same argument for or against .NET and Microsoft's proprietary software then?

People hate being de-facto locked into Microsoft. But being de-facto locked into GPL, while arguably better because the API is open and the intentions are better, isn't devoid of problems.

Am I arguing GPL and everyone using it should change? Hardly. That'd be aggression on my part to force people to bend to my whim (as if I could). But FSF essentially saying everyone should use GPL is the same type of aggression, even if the intentions are noble.

So let me clarify to show we're probably much closer than further apart in opinions: Do I think the world should move much much much further toward open source software? Yes, yes, yes, absolutely. Do I think everything should magically be GPL? No.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Isn't that the same argument for or against .NET and Microsoft's proprietary software then?

Not really? I'm talking about you using GPLed code in your own non GPL projects. If you aren't a fan of the GPL in your own projects, why are you using a library or source files that are licensed GPL?

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

The obvious ambiguity here is that when one guy forks GPL code, modifies it, and then refuses to publish his changes... is he violating GPL since he's not distributing the game to begin with? The game is effectively SaaS. Nobody has access to the binaries, so nobody is entitled to the source code for those binaries. He can run one of the most popular servers off 99% of other people's GPL labor to set himself ahead of the pack, start a monopoly for server popularity which draws in more coders under his server, which makes it even more ahead of the pack. And it's exactly what happened until the kid got busted for the unrelated charge of Paypal fraud.

The GPL does not say anything about "only if you distribute the code". If you modify it you are required to share that modification, even if you only modify it privately for personal use. Of course, if nobody knows that you did it then nobody is going to come knocking for your changes, but if anybody does come knocking you are required to make them available. Assuming this is an actual example you could potentially ask the FSF to get involved and look into it and they might be able to coerce this person to share their changes.

Note however that the GPL doesn't say that you have to make the source code available gratis. As far as I know, Richard Stallman is OK with you charging money for the source code. Of course, you may only sell it once because once somebody has it they can distribute it free (gratis) henceforth (and they must distribute it libre).

Freedom (libre) is important to the FSF. It has nothing to do with programmers being enslaved to work for free (gratis).

Exactly. FSF stands for FSF's ideas of freedom. Not mine, no, they don't want me to come up with my own ideas of what's okay. They want everything open, and they want to force people who don't think that way to have to use GPL when they touch other products using GPL. Why do you think so many people are moving away from GPL? Because forcing a license is a form of aggression. You are taking away my freedom to control how my software is used under the assumption that I'm going to abuse that freedom against my users. And that's insanity.

The only freedom they're taking away from you is the freedom to abuse your users. The humanity! Somebody contact the UN! ::) They don't force anybody to do anything. They merely drafted a license that preserves software freedoms, and fight to make people aware of the issues and how to protect themselves from non-free software. People that choose to license their software using the GPL are themselves choosing to restrict your freedom to abuse your users.

It's no different than any proprietary license in that regard, and oddly people that oppose the GPL generally have no problem using proprietary software. That leads me to believe that these people aren't worth listening to.

Advocate open software. That's great! Convince people to open their products. But forcing people to open their products is only going to get people to refuse to interface with GPL products in the first place.

"Open source" is a vague term intended to muddy the waters. It doesn't really have any practical meaning. Open source code can still be proprietary and limited by proprietary licensing terms. For example, to the best of my knowledge the QNX operating system comes with source code. It is still entirely proprietary. You need to purchase an expensive license to acquire it legally. Once you have that you are able to make changes to the system source code as needed for your purpose.

You seem to think I'm 100% against you, GPL, and the FSF. I'm not, not even remotely. But that doesn't mean I cannot have criticisms.

Nobody is restricting your freedom to criticize. You should do a little research first so that you know what you're actually criticizing. Richard Stallman is not some clueless hippy. He's a very smart man with open eyes and strong ethics. Most people that oppose the GPL don't really understand what it's for. Nobody that advocates for the GPL cares if the GPL turns you away from their software. Good. If you don't respect my freedoms with your derivative software then I don't want you using my software to build it (unless you pay me handsomely for the privilege; I'd probably just turn around and do my best to use the funding to match your own modifications to keep mine at par with yours).

Note that a very large part of Linux distributions is GNU. Without GNU there would be no completely free Linux operating systems, and for that matter probably no complete Linux operating systems, period. GNU made Linux possible, and continues to do so. And Richard Stallman made GNU. You should show respect where it is due and appreciate everything that Richard Stallman, GNU, and the GPL has done for us.

Append:

As for the GPL turning people away, you'll note that a majority of devices that you buy these days are full of GPL code, and the documentation generally has the legal disclaimer in the back explaining this. The GPL doesn't scare away commercial interests. It is still much more affordable for them to use the GPL software than to roll their own. What it does do is help to limit their abilities to take away your freedoms.

And the reason that the GPLv3 isn't compatible with other revisions of the license is because the GPLv3 was created in direct response to TiVo using the Linux kernel and perhaps other GPLv2 software and then using a loophole in the wording to avoid having to share their changes back. The GPLv3 patches the hole that TiVo got around.

Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
avatar

I've done some reading/research myself on the topic over the past evenings.

Mr. McCaig, please do not write Linux when really you mean to write GNU+Linux for the scope of discussion in this thread because it does not help your request of others to do some research first before criticizing if you fail to do so yourself and by using the terms loosely like you do, you do not help to dispel the confusion around GNU, GPL and Linux but you are more likely to add to it.

Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel, not more, not less. GNU is not an operating system either (yet, since it still lacks a stable kernel). The GNU Hurd (their kernel) has been in development since around 1990 and it does not look like it is going to be sufficiently bug free or feature complete for everyday use anytime soon. According to wikipedia even rms himself did not think optimistic about GNU Hurd in 2010 and claimed it was not crucial to finish it because a free kernel (Linux) already exists.

You claim that without GNU there would be no Linux. That is wrong. Linux was originally developed on MINIX and GNU applications later came in to replace MINIX components. So whereas it is true that Linux distributions owe much of their success to the availability of GNU software, the claim that without GNU there would be no Linux remains wrong.

And the opposite is true as well, GNU software also owes much of their popularity, availability and distribution to the Linux kernel and Linux distributions because without the Linux kernel, there would not be any feasible way to even run GNU software.

So there is a tight coupling going on between GNU and Linux, they both benefit from each other and it is my wish for you to stop painting a black and white picture of the situation where you seem to demonize one side and praise another. We live in a colorful world where there is no clear distinction between "good" and "evil" as you seem to would like to believe there is.

The FSF is not the only player around in the field of free software. No one here says they are not important and I believe much of the criticism towards the GPL is well justified for reasons that have been pointed out/repeated enough times by now. I'll add another one: it is way too wordy (which is probably one of the main reasons it confuses people and lets them get wrong ideas about it).

Now... I could be wrong but I think the MIT license and the GPL are even compatible (would have to do a thorough check/research on that though) and I do not think that if I release anything under the MIT license or use anything 3rd party under that license that there could be any occurrence of future freedom-restriction towards my code or the code that I re-use.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Dennis said:

without the Linux kernel, there would not be any feasible way to even run GNU software.

There are many OS's that have GNU ports, even MESSDOS, without which Allegro would probably have languished on the horrible Borland stuff.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

 1   2   3 


Go to: