...and if it isn't important to me?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Oct 24, 2009 1:28 AM EDT |
I'm an Open Source pragmatist, not a supporter of the FSF. I, personally, find nothing immoral or unethical about proprietary software. I think whoever creates software should be free to license it as they see fit even if it doesn't conform to the FSF definition of "freedom". FSF is quick to demand freedom in software and deny it to those who see things differently. So... I won't be participating. Open Source is something else to me. It's about the proverbial better mousetrap. Collaboration and peer review result in better software so I'm all for them. However, it never has been about "freedom" for me. |
| azerthoth Oct 24, 2009 1:33 AM EDT |
cheers |
| bigg Oct 24, 2009 5:52 AM EDT |
> I, personally, find nothing immoral or unethical about proprietary software. That's good to know. Just curious what that has to do with the article. > FSF is quick to demand freedom in software and deny it to those who see things differently. Examples of them denying you something, please, consistent with your statement that, "I think whoever creates software should be free to license it as they see fit". > It's about the proverbial better mousetrap. Collaboration and peer review result in better software so I'm all for them. However, it never has been about "freedom" for me. You should read the GPL sometime. The freedoms in the GPL are what allow collaboration and peer review on GPL software. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 24, 2009 10:52 AM EDT |
Free Software can be considered on its merits without citing its ethical precepts. If you are really a pragmatist and NOT an idealist you would not cite the idealistic, unsubstantiated belief that the better mouse trap wins, because unfortunately most times it loses badly to the Good Enough. Moreover, that is true even when the latter product does not meet that standard. It just needs to be backed by better, heavy marketing*. Folks, it might be Time to Get Real. YBT * Including gross live stories in the press, shills like me and astroturfers that make it seem true. |
| caitlyn Oct 24, 2009 1:34 PM EDT |
@bigg: I've read the GPL. There are other licenses that achieve the same results. You're not seriously arguing that the GPL and FSF provide the only means to collaborate? Free Software advocates, including RMS, argue that proprietary software is unethical. They argue that all software should be free, in fact arguing that proprietary software should be banned. There is a huge amount of intolerance in the core FSF position and among their zealous advocates. Has FSF succeeded in denying me anything? No, but they would like to. The article is an FSF piece about what free software means to me and going to their site and expressing what it means to me. To me it means a movement I generally do not support. I do not support their core beliefs and positions. That is what it has to do with the article. @Txt: No, the better mousetrap doesn't always win. Marketing is what wins out more often than not. However, that doesn't mean I can't try and convince people that the mousetrap is better and worth their while. Word of mouth can be the best marketing tool. Oh, and often the better mousetrap DOES win. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2009 2:07 PM EDT |
Sigh. "Open Source" is a geek-minded marketing pitch wrought by poeple who failed to understand the real value of free software to business. I've worked with free software in corporate settings over the last 13 years, and, on occasion, I have broken open the source and been glad to have it. Make no mistake: Source code is an instrumentality. Freedom is the big win. If you never see a single line of code, freedom lets you put up pilot systems or mutliply nodes or do any manner of things without having to wind a crazy maze of procurement and legal folks. Freedom is what lets you design your business systems according to your needs, and not to optimize your software budget. Having the source without the freedom -- and there are such licenses -- doesn't empower you in the same way, even though you can still audit the code and understand the way things work. On some points, RMS is full of smelly runny stuff. On some issues, the FSF overstates the power of the GPL and, ahem, optimistically ignores the logical implications of its words should certain issues go to court, but... I never forget to appreciate the value of the freedom that they have helped to secure. |
| tuxchick Oct 24, 2009 3:20 PM EDT |
The FSF doesn't deny anyone anything. They have no power to deny or make anyone do anything, other than the power of persuasion. Unlike big powerful software and hardware companies, who every day commit actions that limit our freedoms and invade our privacy. Someone's always going on about "RMS/FSF makes me do this." Well no, they don't. |
| tuxchick Oct 24, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
Quoting: On some points, RMS is full of smelly runny stuff. On some issues, the FSF overstates the power of the GPL and, ahem, optimistically ignores the logical implications of its words should certain issues go to court... Or understates...this business with wanting the EU to not allow Oracle to own MySQL has me confused. It's like now GPL2 is all weak and needs some outside muscle. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2009 3:29 PM EDT |
TC - Go figure. I generally smile and nod. GPLx is fine. |
| gus3 Oct 24, 2009 3:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's like now GPL2 is all weak and needs some outside muscle.That was stated explicitly as the major reason for developing the GPLv3. The FSF wanted to close some loopholes ("Tivoisation") and strengthen the legal clarity, to lower the odds of it being challenged in court, and to improve the odds for it if/when it is challenged. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2009 4:20 PM EDT |
gus3 - Tivoisation has nothing to do with GPLV2 is weak or strong, only the breadth of its coverage. As to lowering the odds of a court challenge, that's a bit laughable given the paucity of court challenges to daee. |
| tuxchick Oct 24, 2009 6:07 PM EDT |
And that the GPL has won every court challenge. This is what the FSF has to say, and it is rather boggling: http://keionline.org/ec-mysql Quoting: MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL... In other words, the GPL isn't enough and the revenue from selling closed-source licenses is necessary to keep MySQL afloat. And despite their token claims of perils to consumers, the letter seems more like a plea to force MySQL into a GPL3 license. Monty Widenius, one of the founders of MySQL, is against Oracle too. He has a competing product, MariaDB, a fork of MySQL, so maybe his interest is not allowing a powerful company like Oracle to control his chief competition. He is also a CodePlex advisor, which presumably comes with Redmond cooties. This is all very strange. Maybe I was wrong about the FSF not forcing anything. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2009 6:44 PM EDT |
TC -- I have a question: How many projects combine mysql code with their code? Another question: Doesn't Stallman's argument amount to saying "Gee, it's just too darned bad that MySQL wasn't offered under a BSD-style licence. If it were, we wouldn't be having this problem." |
| hkwint Oct 24, 2009 6:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:To me it means a movement I generally do not support. You should vlog and submit it. |
| tuxchick Oct 24, 2009 9:10 PM EDT |
LOL dino, I think so. RMS/FSF have been far-sighted on a lot of issues, so I keep looking for the "Aha!" explanation that clears it all up and makes sense. But it seems they want to override the wishes (and they don't even know what those are going to be) of the future copyright holder of MySQL. Which brings up another copyright issue I think about-- in the Linux kernel the copyrights belong to whoever writes the code. On some projects, like Asterisk, all contributors must transfer their copyrights to Digium. Both solve different problems, and also create different types of messes. |
| caitlyn Oct 24, 2009 11:34 PM EDT |
@tc: You are correct that at present the FSF denies me nothing. However, their ideology, as advocated by some of their supporters, is to do all they can to eliminate proprietary software. That's a goal I do not support and it would deny me something if they ever succeed. I think it is unlikely that they ever will. So... it isn't that they deny me anything but rather that they would like to restrict my rights. @dino: I do understand the value of the freedom to modify and the freedom to redistribute. I think those are wonderful options that should be made available at the discretion of the owner of the code, not made mandatory. I think you should also have the freedom to insist on "Free" software for your use all you want. I've been trying to crystallize what rubs me the wrong way about FSF. I think it's the evangelical nature of the movement. I think it's trying to sell free software as ethical and non-free software as unethical... or free software as somehow virtuous and proprietary software as somehow not. I come from a religious tradition where proselytizing is considered offensive. By making this an ethical issue FSF makes "free software" a religious issue and I have no use for preachers of any kind. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2009 12:04 AM EDT |
caitlyn - The FSF and free software are not the same thing. RMS and the FSF have made some wonderful contributions, but they remain one part of a larger free software world. |
| jdixon Oct 25, 2009 12:06 AM EDT |
> I think those are wonderful options that should be made available at the discretion of the owner of the code, not made mandatory. You say that as if you think Dino disagrees with you. Take my word for it, he doesn't. |
| tracyanne Oct 25, 2009 1:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:So... it isn't that they deny me anything but rather that they would like to restrict my rights. So your reasons for not supporting Free Software is based on conjecture. Quoting:. I come from a religious tradition where proselytizing is considered offensive. By making this an ethical issue FSF makes "free software" a religious issue and I have no use for preachers of any kind. I'm an Atheist, so you can probably guess my opinion of Religion and it's associated bent to proselytizing. But so far your opposition to Free Software seems, to me, to be based on conjecture, in other words it seems more like a statement of Faith than anything based on Fact. |
| caitlyn Oct 25, 2009 2:06 AM EDT |
@tracyanne: No, it's not based on conjecture. It is based entirely on the statements by RMS and other Free Software advocates. Please, don't try to insult me. That generally isn't a good way to win arguments. |
| tracyanne Oct 25, 2009 2:12 AM EDT |
caitlyn, I wasn't trying to win anything. Nor did I set out to insult you. If you take insult, that really is your problem, and I couldn't care less. All I did was point out that your opposition to the FSF appears to be based on conjecture. You have no examples of the FSF denying yourself, myself or anyone else Freedoms, all you have is conjecture based on inflammatory statements made by some supporters of FSF. |
| caitlyn Oct 25, 2009 2:52 PM EDT |
Actually, there is a huge difference between conjecture and a stated ideology. Oh, and the idea that proprietary software is unethical comes from RMS himself, not just "some supporters". The FSF ideology is antithetical to freedom in licensing, freedom to be open or closed. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 25, 2009 3:22 PM EDT |
As much as it pains me to agree with Caitlyn on anything today, that RMS has stated closed software "should" be prohibited is my remembering as well. He justifies the prohibition on it being unethical, but it's still his opinion about what other people aught to be allowed to do. Luckily, RMS and the FSF has no legislative power, so they have no ability to coerce others to their opinions. Voluntary interaction works again. RMS's consistant ethical stand is refreshing and very appreciated, after all there is no one with which I completely agree on everything. |
| Libervis Oct 25, 2009 3:39 PM EDT |
I'm in neither camp completely, yet at the same time I think FOSS is as close as it gets to justice in the software world, but still far from it. I have more problem with copyright law in general and the idea of "intellectual property". What I consider to be unethical is forcing people into agreements they did not make, regardless of whether the terms of said "agreement" correspond to Free Software or proprietary software. And that stems directly from a flawed belief into "intellectual property". So it comes down to choosing a lesser evil. I support Free Software in so far as I oppose the idea of intellectual property, but I also support Open Source people when they say there is no ethical issue in choosing to provide software under different terms or without source code. I do think there is an ethical problem, but it's not within distribution terms so much as within copyright itself. But I think I can support Free Software without being a fan of FSF. They're kinda like the mini version, even if with benevolent *intentions* of such institutions as the BSA. You guessed it, my problem is their tie up with copyright enforcement and desires to legislate in favor of FS. But I also think they go a little too far with their boycott campaigns by essentially stooping almost to the same level as Microsoft with FUD. But this is all confusing because the terminology for both just utterly sucks. Let's just say I support "FOSS" (vague..) from a partly pragmatic and a partly ideological reasons, but not the ideology FSF peddles. |
| caitlyn Oct 25, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:But I think I can support Free Software without being a fan of FSF. This is the one part of what Libervis wrote that I completely agree with. I *do* support and advocate for software that falls within the FSF definition of free. Just because I don't support the organization or the ideology doesn't mean I won't support excellent software released in a beneficial way. dino is correct on this point as well. I also don't deny that RMS has written valuable code or that he has made some valuable contributions towards making software more open. I'm not opposed to the GPL per se, for example. There are other Open Source licenses which I find preferable, at least in certain cases. IIRC they are all compatible with the GPL in any case and FSF has no objections to them. Linus Torvalds has spoken about what he sees as advantages in the Affero GPL, for example. I will point out that enforcement of the GPL (any version) is entirely dependent on existing copyright law. As we discussed in another thread I do believe in the concept of intellectual property, including both patents and copyrights, and I think the laws are necessary to protect the rights of creators of various works, whether it's music or books or software. What I generally oppose are what I consider to be abuses of the concepts or overreaching laws. For example, software patents which allow the patenting of a concept rather than actual code are objectionable in my view. Anyone who has done any serious amount of coding knows that there are entirely different ways one can achieve essentially the same result independently without stealing someone else's work. Bob is entirely correct that the FSF has no ability to coerce and no authority at this time. However, the do seek to make their ideas law, effectively functioning as lobbyists. I would find a prohibition on proprietary software every bit as objectionable and overreaching as the software patents we have in the U.S. today. (Oh, and Bob, I have no difficulty agreeing with you. It isn't painful in the least.) |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 25, 2009 4:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, the do seek to make their ideas law, effectively functioning as lobbyists. What? Link or it didn't happen. I know what RMS thinks of Free Software but I don't believe that he or the FSF are actively lobbying congress to outlaw proprietary software. |
| tracyanne Oct 25, 2009 4:50 PM EDT |
See, when you stop taking insult, and instead address what I say, one gets good comment. The thing is the FSF "ideology" isn't about Freedom, it about Software Freedom... the freedom of the Software and ensuring that it is always Free, not the Freedom of the individual, I tend to agree with the FSF position, that Proprietary Software is unethical. I see it, or at least the actions of it's developers, as unethical, because the primary thrust of Proprietary Software purveyors is to create scarcity, where there is none, for the sole purpose of lifting more money from my pocket. |
| Libervis Oct 25, 2009 5:30 PM EDT |
There is a difference between a "unreasonable" and "unethical". I think too many people throw the "unethical" label around too liberally. In my opinion if there's consent and no fraud then it's ethical, no matter what the contract was, unless perhaps the contract says that the other party now owns you, which kinda makes it the last contract you'll ever agree to. Software distribution terms which say "you're prohibited to share" is unreasonable. It's a valid contract, but it's a bad contract in that if you agree to such a thing you're probably selling yourself too short. The other party gets to charge over and over again for something they invested effort into only once. It's unethical only if it involves fraud, as in the other party telling you how it actually costs the same to produce each copy as it costed to produce the original (which would be obvious BS). Copyright however makes these unreasonable contracts double-bad. In reality if two people have an agreement it's between those two people. Copyright overrides that and says that the contract between A and B suddenly MUST be the same between B and C. You don't even need to carefully craft a viral contract (similar to GPL). It applies either way. That stems directly from the belief in intellectual property, the idea that you can own an idea, which is physically *impossible* - you can't own arrangements any more than you can own the number 5. The result is people being forced to behave under terms they never agreed to. For example, an EULA might say you can share only two copies of the program. If you agree to that well, you agreed to it, no matter it's stupid to agree to something like that, but it's still a valid contract. Now you give a copy to a friend and this is where copyright comes in. Without copyright, you could give it to a friend under any terms you like so long as the EULA doesn't say anything on that. In other words you can give a copy to a friend and tell him he can share to as many people as he wants. He didn't break the first contract with this second contract. But copyright swoops in and says "no can do, regardless of the fact your contract doesn't state it, you must give to the other person under the same terms as your original contract". What?? It's like a third person which has nothing to do with it suddenly coming in and dictating what you can or can't do, regardless of what either of the parties involved say. Of course, the goal of copyright is to get contracts stuck. What the first person with the original vendor agreed to now suddenly everyone else who receives it downstream must agree to, even if that wasn't provisioned in the original terms. That's why I think what's unethical is copyright and any reliance on it, not the terms themselves. Terms can be unreasonable, but they are ethically valid. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 25, 2009 6:14 PM EDT |
> I tend to agree with the FSF position, that Proprietary Software is unethical. I tend to go with ESR on this one, that it's just less efficient than Libre software. I won't go as far as he does to state how the GPL is not needed. Just because voluntary interaction is more efficient does nothing to prevent coercive forces from ruining that efficiency by the simple expedient of externalizing their costs. Something has to exist to counter this expediency, and at this time copyright is an effective tool for that purpose in the realm of software. If copyright is ever repealed, people will find other ways to do what they wish to do in that legal environment, just as they always have. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 25, 2009 6:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:That's why I think what's unethical is copyright and any reliance on it Then why do you claim copyright over your website articles? Why do you license them under CC-by-sa? If you don't like copyright you should put your work in the public domain. |
| Libervis Oct 25, 2009 7:58 PM EDT |
Sander, like I said I don't have a problem with the *terms*, but the reliance on copyright to make those terms apply where they otherwise wouldn't (if the only "law" was the contract terms themselves). CC-BY-SA is a statement of particular terms and I consider them a contract between me and readers of my articles. Also specifically the SA (ShareAlike) part means that these people agree that they will share under same terms. That's the original agreement I described above where they do agree to use those terms. But if my terms were only to require credit (like CC-BY) then this would mean that those receiving the content directly from me and my site (or to be more specific, web server space I rented) would need to provide credit. That's their only obligation because that's all they agreed to. It's not their obligation however to ask *others* to give me credit too when HE gives it to them (not me) because that's a whole different transaction and thus a whole different agreement. In that instance he's the one making the terms because he uses HIS resources, not mine, to provide it to someone. But copyright makes that illegal. According to copyright if my reader gives a copy to another person without the requirement to credit me and that person then publishes the work without crediting me that person would do something illegal despite the fact that he never agreed to such a liability. Of course, I do like getting credit from all downstream receivers and hence asking my readers to ask their receivers to give me credit and for those receivers to ask theirs the same. I don't need copyright to do that. As for enforcement, if you'll ask, I don't think copyright (or the state) are the only ones with the right to provide contract enforcement, but since they pretend otherwise (and have almost all the guns) I have no choice, not that I would necessarily go sue people for not giving me credit. After all there are many ways to sanction contract violations that don't involve threats of violence and money extraction. EDIT: I realize I have "Copyright (c)" on two of my sites, but they're a relic from when I wasn't thinking this way. These two sites are pending a redesign however and I'll change that. I have a new third site which doesn't use such language at all and embeds the terms of use of my content within the "Terms of Service" page (see DoublePlusHuman.com if curious). :) |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2009 8:23 PM EDT |
Cool. A reasonable conversation of free software by people who have thought well on the topic. I'm so proud of you all. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!