(Not responding to Marinus specifically, just getting a few thoughts in
the thread.)
1. First, the FSF has a community team of volunteers who try to respond
to this sort of public issue. The public-facing PR arm of the FSF, as
it were. Perhaps it should send a rebuttal to the journal? Thoughts,
Pen-Yuan?
2. I recall an anecdote that might help crystallize things.
I recall reading a comment from the founder (and copyright holder) of
the LLVM project, saying that he chose a permissive license for the
project because he had the intention of someday making a proprietary
product based on it. (I probably can't find that quote, sorry!)
Now, if you're an expert in writing compilers and have a notion to
contribute to LLVM, how do you like the fact that you could offer your
contribution freely, but the copyright holder could take it, add his
own contributions, and put it not into LLVM but into a proprietary
"LLVM+". You would have no access to the improved version; you could
pay for a binary blob but you won't have the source code. All you have
is an assurance that LLVM--as of the version you contributed to--will
always be available. Not a bad thing, but aren't you a bit of a
sucker? You gave, he took; he gave, and now you can't get. Wouldn't
you rather contribute to a project with a strong Free license, so you
know you'll get the benefit of future contributions from others?
3. *Of course* corporations are expressing a preference for permissive
licenses. This benefits those that would like to make proprietary
products based on them. *Of course* the GPL makes it harder to work
with such software projects. This is simply a matter of large,
powerful entities generating discourse that benefits them, and people
not really paying attention to the deeper phenomenon. It seems
critical these days in all areas of our lives: we need to evaluate the
power and financial dynamics involved, and the motives of the entity
generating the discourse.
(Isn't it the case that Google has made a rule of no additional GPL
software in Android? And of course they are developing their own
kernel so they can get rid of Linux. Is it our business to make life
better for Google?)
4. 99% of people, including (especially?) highly computer-literate
people, have never even thought about associating ethics with
software. We haven't lost the debate; we haven't *had* the debate.
Just getting the question on the table would be a success.
-Jim Garrett
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:00:33 +0200
Marinus Savoritias <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> wrote:
On 9/22/20 8:39 PM, Pedro Lucas Porcellis wrote:
The second criticism is kind of a sign of the times if you think
about it. 30 years ago when GPL there was the big war of us versus
them. And evil corporations and all of that stuff. Not that these
dangerous corporations don't exist now of course. The danger of
corporations is more than ever. But the people have changed.
I don't think those people have changed. They just adapted to the
current environment. By marketing "open-source" libraries and
components you can have cheap and free labor. "Don't worry, people
will fix that React bug for you, while you don't really respect
people's freedoms, keep spying, storing user's data, doing
unethical things, and even fucking up things outside the
non-digital world, I mean, look at facebook and Google, etc.
I was talking about the developers. The companies of course haven't
changed. The backend has become more free software though among other
stuff. Not copyleft though.
People nowadays are far more collaborative and diverse. The simple
number of programmers and licenses and software that we have is
hundreds of time more than 30 years ago. Expecting people to stay
only in the GPL ecosystem, which is not that big to begin with, is
basically driving people away. I can't think of a single
programmer that I can convince to use GPL with all of the
legalities and considerations of dependencies it can have.
Again, that's just a lack of understanding and lazyness of today
most developers. If a developer randomly picks a permissive license
this person can trade that for GPL. The key difference is that all
derivative-works will keep enforcing that premisse while building a
chain of respect.
I guess it depends how you look at it. For me its a lack of outreach
and connection from FSF and GNU to the rest of the developer
community.
One big success story of Copyleft license is the Activity Pub
ecosystem if you know it. Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube,
WriteFreely and more all under AGPL-3.
The thing we have to keep in mind with Copyleft is that it is
still not the time for it in my opinion. We live in a time of
extreme corporate propaganda. And fake openness everywhere. While
at the same time they lock into their ecosystem. Two big examples
is the Web with the Google-Chromium monopoly and systemd.
That's EXACTLY why we need Copyleft. We need to push forward and
show that companies and products can be built around licenses like
the GPL. For instance, sourcehut (AGPL) is one of the most
promising examples of a company built around a complete free and
open-source ecosystem, and which truly enforces and contributes
more and more towards this goal.
Agreed. it would be a good idea to show that GPL can be profitable.
Personally I don't really care about companies that much though.
1. Is FSF and GNU as a whole happy with the current situation? We
technically have more Free Software than ever. But the Copyleft
and user abuse is as high as it has ever been.
2. Is FSF and GNU the center of thing anymore? Do we want it to
be? Because I can tell you that there are Copyleft Licenses
outside of GNU. Few but exist. And there are developers that left
GNU for some reason but still work on Copyleft software. And of
course the young developers that haven't heard of FSF or GNU. Or
don't want/bother to join.
I think this is about perspective. FSF and GNU still _works_.
They're being undermined because we live in a society where we
enforce _non free software_ and make it even harder for people who
wants to write free software, after all, _in order to write free
software we need to write proprietary software first as we need to
pay some bills_.
I think this is all deeply related to how we structure ourself as
society and depoliticization of the free software movement.
I hope it made sense, I wrote in a bit of a hurry while writing
proprietary software for companies that literally throw thousands of
pesticides in my country's food.
I think its also because FSF and GNU have a trouble of being
relevant. They are not known so much among devs and if they are they
don't like them or they don't care. I think its a lack of outreach as
I said above.
What do you mean depoliticization?
Marinus Savoritias
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss