Re: [GTALUG] "'Opens source' is not 'free software'"
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:44:51AM +0200, ac via talk wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:09:55 -0400 (EDT) "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I found this article interesting and useful <https://opensource.com/business/16/11/open-source-not-free-software> This guy disagrees: <https://meshedinsights.com/2017/06/07/free-vs-open/>
imho, it is semantics / point of view..
my own pov (ymmv): Truly free and truly open is everything BSD licensed (including my own BSD released code/projects/software) my GPL etc licensed software is open, and free if you are only a user, but not so much free if you are a dev, etc. :)
The goal of GPL is the freedom of the source code, and hence the freedom of future users of the source code. It is not the freedom of someone to decide to deny others the same freedom, unlike the BSD license where the receiver is the one that is most free to do what they want. So yes the GPL gives each user less freedom in the interest of giving all users that same level of freedom in using the code. Different goal. -- Len Sorensen
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:37:12 -0400 lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
they want. So yes the GPL gives each user less freedom in the interest of giving all users that same level of freedom in using the code.
Different goal.
I know what you are trying to say, but... end users of gpl or bsd code have exactly the same freedom. developers using bsd code and dev using gpl code have different freedoms. and as you said, and I said in my original reply, depends on the goal(s) - as they are different Andre
After decades with no apparent change in arguments or hope for resolution, I find the whole debate elitist and entertainingly stagnant. Reminds me of candy <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QpPNcT-J4> advertisements <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0>. As is common in religious debates, the two sides tend to come from different mindsets and don't even get what the other is saying. I find the two approaches complementary rather than in opposition. Want to do it for the improvement of society? Great. Want to do it to improve efficiency, reduce bugs and involve a broader talent pool? Also great. Just do it. By and large the paths are the same. What has more-recently astounded me about the binary nature of the debate is that it has ignored a third aspect that challenges the other two -- cloud-based software. The GPL does not require you to release your modified source if you don't redistribute your code at all. A cloud service thus can use software under even the most "viral" licenses without worry because the result is only actually executed on computers wholly under its control. While people still argue about closed MS-Word versus open LibreOffice, they ignore Google Docs -- Is that open or closed? Can its developers incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an assortment of reasons. - Evan On 13 July 2017 at 09:37, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:44:51AM +0200, ac via talk wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:09:55 -0400 (EDT) "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I found this article interesting and useful <https://opensource.com/business/16/11/open-source-not-free-software> This guy disagrees: <https://meshedinsights.com/2017/06/07/free-vs-open/>
imho, it is semantics / point of view..
my own pov (ymmv): Truly free and truly open is everything BSD licensed (including my own BSD released code/projects/software) my GPL etc licensed software is open, and free if you are only a user, but not so much free if you are a dev, etc. :)
The goal of GPL is the freedom of the source code, and hence the freedom of future users of the source code. It is not the freedom of someone to decide to deny others the same freedom, unlike the BSD license where the receiver is the one that is most free to do what they want. So yes the GPL gives each user less freedom in the interest of giving all users that same level of freedom in using the code.
Different goal.
-- Len Sorensen --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Hmmmm. True cloud services are an interesting quirk. On 07/13/2017 10:26 AM, Evan Leibovitch via talk wrote:
After decades with no apparent change in arguments or hope for resolution, I find the whole debate elitist and entertainingly stagnant. Reminds me of candy <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QpPNcT-J4> advertisements <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0>.
As is common in religious debates, the two sides tend to come from different mindsets and don't even get what the other is saying. I find the two approaches complementary rather than in opposition.
Want to do it for the improvement of society? Great. Want to do it to improve efficiency, reduce bugs and involve a broader talent pool? Also great. Just do it. By and large the paths are the same.
What has more-recently astounded me about the binary nature of the debate is that it has ignored a third aspect that challenges the other two -- cloud-based software. The GPL does not require you to release your modified source if you don't redistribute your code at all. A cloud service thus can use software under even the most "viral" licenses without worry because the result is only actually executed on computers wholly under its control.
While people still argue about closed MS-Word versus open LibreOffice, they ignore Google Docs -- Is that open or closed? Can its developers incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an assortment of reasons.
- Evan
On 13 July 2017 at 09:37, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk@gtalug.org <mailto:talk@gtalug.org>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:44:51AM +0200, ac via talk wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:09:55 -0400 (EDT) > "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org <mailto:talk@gtalug.org>> wrote: > > I found this article interesting and useful > > <https://opensource.com/business/16/11/open-source-not-free-software <https://opensource.com/business/16/11/open-source-not-free-software>> > > This guy disagrees: > > <https://meshedinsights.com/2017/06/07/free-vs-open/ <https://meshedinsights.com/2017/06/07/free-vs-open/>> > > imho, it is semantics / point of view.. > > my own pov (ymmv): Truly free and truly open is everything BSD licensed > (including my own BSD released code/projects/software) my GPL etc > licensed software is open, and free if you are only a user, but not so > much free if you are a dev, etc. :)
The goal of GPL is the freedom of the source code, and hence the freedom of future users of the source code. It is not the freedom of someone to decide to deny others the same freedom, unlike the BSD license where the receiver is the one that is most free to do what they want. So yes the GPL gives each user less freedom in the interest of giving all users that same level of freedom in using the code.
Different goal.
-- Len Sorensen --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org <mailto:talk@gtalug.org> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk <https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
--- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- Alvin Starr || land: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:26:43AM -0400, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
After decades with no apparent change in arguments or hope for resolution, I find the whole debate elitist and entertainingly stagnant. Reminds me of candy <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QpPNcT-J4> advertisements <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0>.
As is common in religious debates, the two sides tend to come from different mindsets and don't even get what the other is saying. I find the two approaches complementary rather than in opposition.
Want to do it for the improvement of society? Great. Want to do it to improve efficiency, reduce bugs and involve a broader talent pool? Also great. Just do it. By and large the paths are the same.
What has more-recently astounded me about the binary nature of the debate is that it has ignored a third aspect that challenges the other two -- cloud-based software. The GPL does not require you to release your modified source if you don't redistribute your code at all. A cloud service thus can use software under even the most "viral" licenses without worry because the result is only actually executed on computers wholly under its control.
While people still argue about closed MS-Word versus open LibreOffice, they ignore Google Docs -- Is that open or closed? Can its developers incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an assortment of reasons.
I believe the answer is that yes they can. This appears to be why the AGPL license exists as per this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html -- Len Sorensen
On 13 July 2017 at 11:27, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Can developers
incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an assortment of reasons.
I believe the answer is that yes they can. This appears to be why the AGPL license exists as per this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
It exists, but barely <https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses>, to the point of irrelevance. And even the description of the license admits that it doesn't really solve the open/closed issues inherent in SaaS. So my point stands that this is an important facet of software freedom that has been lost amidst the dogmatism of "free software" versus "open source". - Evan
Thinking more about it I am not sure that there is a conflict there. If I use Apache to run my web site I am still within the ideals GPL. My PHP application does not need to be GPL and if I write a special module for Apache that does not need to be GPL. If I try to make money off selling Apache with my module or PHP then I run afoul of the intent of the GPL. Your comparison of Office/OOffice/Gdocs is interesting but you could just as easily substitute Gdocs for www.theweathernetwork.com or Linkedin. The question should be: Are you locked into a proprietary data format? The real issue is; can I take my data with some application and can I move it to some other application? And that has little to do with any of the copyleft schemes. Copyleft does not solve all problems but it has solved enough so that the industry is dramatically different than it was 30 years ago and it appears that there will be no going back soon. Once upon a time I developed a bunch of IBCS software for a project I was working on but the project was going nowhere so I released it to some Linux kernel folks with the request that I get "some credit". If I had released it under some form of copyleft I would have likely gotten the attribution that I wanted but all I got was a lesson in trusting people. I am also not sure that this is a religious fight. Religious fights usually involve people killing each other. I often say there are only 2 true evils in the world: Politics and Religion. Its the reason we kill each other en-mass. On 07/13/2017 11:56 AM, Evan Leibovitch via talk wrote:
On 13 July 2017 at 11:27, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca <mailto:lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
> Can developers > incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? > This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an > assortment of reasons.
I believe the answer is that yes they can. This appears to be why the AGPL license exists as per this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html>
It exists, but barely <https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses>, to the point of irrelevance. And even the description of the license admits that it doesn't really solve the open/closed issues inherent in SaaS. So my point stands that this is an important facet of software freedom that has been lost amidst the dogmatism of "free software" versus "open source".
- Evan
--- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- Alvin Starr || land: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On 13 July 2017 at 13:54, Alvin Starr via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Thinking more about it I am not sure that there is a conflict there.
If I use Apache to run my web site I am still within the ideals GPL. My PHP application does not need to be GPL and if I write a special module for Apache that does not need to be GPL. If I try to make money off selling Apache with my module or PHP then I run afoul of the intent of the GPL.
Not sure, as the Apache license is not the GPL. But... if you were to run your code on your own servers as a web application, you can close it all off and you're not running afoul on aanything. Your comparison of Office/OOffice/Gdocs is interesting but you could just
as easily substitute Gdocs for www.theweathernetwork.com or Linkedin.
Except that I was comparing office suites :-) The question should be: Are you locked into a proprietary data format?
That, and the portability and privacy of your data, are arguably more important to most users than the "freeness" of the code itself. This is why, IMO, the open source versus free software debate is more pointless than ever.
The real issue is; can I take my data with some application and can I move it to some other application? And that has little to do with any of the copyleft schemes.
Yup.
Once upon a time I developed a bunch of IBCS software for a project I was working on but the project was going nowhere so I released it to some Linux kernel folks with the request that I get "some credit".
That would have been BSD license which is essentially "do what you want but don't erase my name as creator". Didn't need to go as far as GPL. I am also not sure that this is a religious fight.
Religious fights usually involve people killing each other. I often say there are only 2 true evils in the world: Politics and Religion. Its the reason we kill each other en-mass.
May be, but I have see SOME civil discussions on religion. At least a few,,,, Cheers, - Evan
On Thu 13 Jul 2017 13:54 -0400, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
If I try to make money off selling Apache with my module or PHP then I run afoul of the intent of the GPL.
The GPL does not forbid anyone from making money by selling software. It only requires that an offer of source code be made.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
Can a durable physical medium include cassettes, floppies?
On 07/13/2017 06:11 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Thu 13 Jul 2017 13:54 -0400, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
If I try to make money off selling Apache with my module or PHP then I run afoul of the intent of the GPL. The GPL does not forbid anyone from making money by selling software. It only requires that an offer of source code be made.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Can a durable physical medium include cassettes, floppies?
I could have phrased that better. If I decide to sell my software with custom modifications but do not offer to show the source. Then I am afoul of the GPL. -- Alvin Starr || land: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:56:08 -0400 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an assortment of reasons. I believe the answer is that yes they can. This appears to be why
Can developers the AGPL license exists as per this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html It exists, but barely <https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses>, to the
On 13 July 2017 at 11:27, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: point of irrelevance. And even the description of the license admits that it doesn't really solve the open/closed issues inherent in SaaS. So my point stands that this is an important facet of software freedom that has been lost amidst the dogmatism of "free software" versus "open source".
is there any consensus that cloud presents the single greatest threat to future software freedom? (and users are mostly apathetic in their financial support of various offerings as those relate to future freedom, vendor lock in and many other potentially evil things)? Andre
participants (5)
-
ac -
Alvin Starr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Loui Chang -
lsorense＠csclub.uwaterloo.ca