I'm excited to see we don't need to self-defeatingly use state apparatii like courts and police to succeed in liberating things :'>
the only question left is:
is that a square root graph or a logarithm? >.>
@freemo Ah yes, of course, the freedom to abuse other peoples rights is very important to uphold.
If you throw a breadcrumb in a pond, the biggest and strongest fish is going to get it, and become bigger and stronger.
If you throw money on the street the "toughest" gang on the block is going to get it and get "tougher".
In a world that is clearly and obviously dominated by proprietary software monopolies "I don't care, let anyone do what they want" is equivalent to "I love megacorps owning everyone left and right!".
GPL is not a license that grants you freedom in heaven, it's a license that fight for your freedom in hell.
@freemo Thanks for reminding me... Just updated my FOSS licence for openocd-spi 👍 https://github.com/lupyuen/openocd-spi/blob/master/src/jtag/drivers/bcm2835spi.c
@namark Why would i care if the biggest and strongest take advantage of my software, let them. Doesnt prevent the little guys from using it too so I'm happy.
If I release software it is for EVERYONE, I'm not classist it isnt for just a select few who qualify by a specific financial status.
@freemo Consider this.
You release you wonderful piece of software for anyone to do anything they want with it. Mr. Monopolist comes along, sees some merit in it, throws their huge team of developers/marketers at it and produces a proprietary product based on it, that from users perspective, your original, oh so free, project can never hope to compete with. No matter how hard you(or the community) strive to keep up, you are always behind Mr. Monopolist, cause you give away all you work, while they just laugh at you and continue to dominate the market.
After some time even the knowledgeable little guy can't freely use your software anymore, unless they are willing to use ancient software/hardware, cause the whole ecosystem surrounding it is proprietary.
OSS is a way for monopolistic mega corporations to keep FOSS under control and make sure they are always ahead.
@namark Except that not really how it ever plays out.
Big old company steals it, makes it proprietary, most of the users I actually care about (linux users and open source contributors)dont care they continue to work on the project anyway. In fact The likely result is an **increase** in developers who contribute not a decrease.
I still get to use the software as does the rest of the world, AND there is an increase in contribution and my project grows faster.
Looks like the company coming and snatching it up only helped my position and did nothing to hurt it. Again, why do I care if they want to add to my project and sell them, great, hope they have some wonderful results.
@freemo Not playing out that way, would be the OSS project beating the proprietary alternative that is based on it: BSD beating mac on desktop, linux beating android on mobile, llvm beating nvidia's cuda compiler, etc.
What you are saying, is that it plays out exactly as I described, but you just don't care, because you are not a user you are a developer, and you are interested in development and not usage.
I would assume you also don't care about the fact that majority computing devices used by general public don't work at all without proprietary firmware, and don't work well without proprietary software.
@namark Yea I mostly dont care about that. I use linux, my phones and my software are all compatible with my needs, they continue to draw plenty of developers. Yea I'm perfectly fine with aall that, in fact its what I WANT, to see the economy thrive by the use of these techs as much as the open-source community itself. I am quite excited when i see it adopted into proprietary tech, it means we are succeeding at our goals.
@freemo If your needs include to be surveilled and prevented from using your devices it doesn't suit the owner of proprietary software/firmware on it, then I can't argue.
Can't wait for all the new and exciting developments in proprietary software, like police robots patrolling the streets running "microsoft windows utopian edition"!
@namark If they want to offer me their service for my data thats their right. Depending on the data its a trade im usualy more than ok to make. If not I can either not use the serivce or in some cases get a paid alternative. But regardless of if I use it or not I'm still happy to see it help the economy.
I have plenty of open source I can still use if i dont want surveillance and am willing to run my own hardware. So yes, absolutely my uses are still satisfied.
Plenty of issues in temrs of laws and freedoms worth addressing, none of that has proprietary software to blame. Proper rules regarding our freedom is an issue governments need to get on, not a need to abolish closed source however.
@freemo With firmware they are free to not offer you anything and still surveil you and control you device through network. You can't do anything about that on most modern hardware. You don't have an alternative unless you are capable of manufacturing your own hardware.
There are some limited options like old dekstop hardware(librebooted thinkpads) or expensive server hardware(Raptor engineering Talos II). But these can't satiate the market.
With software, they are free to not offer you anything and surveil or control your device to the extend that the software allows(display driver can OCR and censor text for example). Alternatives exist but are usually not competitive(forever behind, and sometimes even happy about it as you demonstrated).
You argument about rules is equivalent of saying "we don't need to list the ingredients on food products as long as there is a rule that there is no poison in them. Also the producer of the food is free to demand you to not open the packaging before consumption, and is also free to poison you if you do. Governments and law bending megacorps decide what's poison".
@namark No one is forcing me to buy any paritcular hardware/firmware option. If they feel they can offer me a prorietary firmware at a cheaper cost they will. I can then decide to either buy that product or pay extra for the open one.
If you feel the options are too limited then make your own option.
Regardless it is more an argument for the need for better privacy laws than an argument that I need to abolish everything proprietary.
@namark Also i heard the whole food ingredient argument before, it isnt exactly fitting. It is more like:
"People should be free to decide if they want to eat food that doesnt list its ingredients or not"
@freemo Your really think proprietary software/firmware is cost reduction? That's the weirdest argument. To me it's clearly a way to establish monopoly. Desire to be a sole owner of the products and make competition impossible, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me. Prices for such products are not set objectively, they are set on a "how much are people ready to pay" basis. Same software and hardware often costs less in poorer countries(with artificial region locking).
And how exactly is "having no alternative" is not forcing? "Sure you don't have to buy this technology... if you don't want to be a functional part of society". Even today, when these practices are still in their infancy, people are denied certain services if they don't have a smartphone, or forced to use certain technology(proprietary time/activity tracking software) to do their job.
@namark Thats not what I said. Also I have plenty of alternatives im happy to use. Though as I said I'd be happy to support any strong privacy laws
@freemo Starving people are not free to decide what they eat. All you arguments work in perfect society where free software is the accepted norm, while you live in society where proprietary is the norm.
@freemo umm... bending analogy?
In the case of food people are starving for food.
In case of open hardware people are "starving" for open hardware not food.
Are you going to argue, that only essentials are food and shelter, and if you have that you need nothing else in life?
@namark Never made any claim about what was essential. You are really stretching to put words in my mouth to argue a point
@freemo I didn't say you claimed that, I asked if you're going to claim that, because that's the only way forward I see for your argument(this branch of it).
@freemo Ah, I see, so solely open hardware isn't essential then. Today maybe it isn't. When the "microsoft windows utopia edition" robots start patrolling the streets it will suddenly become essential. The hope is by that time free software will become the norm. The anti-copyleft OSS movement is doing nothing but hindering that, by saying what essentially amounts to "proprietary software rules the (software) world, and that's ok, it should be free to do it".
@namark In reality those microsoft robots will likely crash every few minutes and be so slow and buggy that my linux robot that I built myself will easily outpower them.
@freemo :D sorry, can't help but to argue even with a joke:
put aside, that in real reality your linux robot will be superior to microsoft's in every way, except the most essential - being able to utilize it's own hardware to the full potential (assuming no proprietary drivers); it will also be running on intel firmware that would be hardcoded to override the kernel and submit to any microsoft robot, which will of course be protected from being overwritten with state of the art cryptography.
@namark Except that linux does run on proprietary hardware all the time and I specifically buy either open or at least reverse angineered hardware. Linux fully leverages every piece of hardware I buy, because I buy hardware to ensure it can. Still not a problem. Dont like proprietary hardware, then dont buy it.
@freemo Assuming you mean "does NOT run on proprietary", what do you mean by "all the time"? Like, you hope that the firmware steps down after the boot process?
I'm sorry to disappoint(if not you personally, than maybe some people reading) but unless you're solely running IBM power9 (or some 10+ year old librebooted system) your linux is running at the mercy of internet connected proprietary firmware, that has full(read/write) access to all your RAM at the very least. The operation of this firmware is undetectable by the kernel and its integrity is guaranteed by a digital signature, at all times. It itself can also be updated remotely, given necessary cryptographic keys. But not to worry, Intel/AMD promises you they're not gonna do anything bad with it. Wait did I say bad? I meant "unlawful".
And again the "don't like it don't buy it" argument doesn't work, because the market is dominated. For some people, even today, it's a requirement. "You need this time tracking software to do your job, and it only runs on recent enough x86" or "x86 has better software support than power9, so if we want to stay competitive we must use it" or even more twisted ways to control the market, with leverage point always being proprietary software.
@freemo Ah, I see, that's clear. It runs, but still, at least in the case of the CPU, it runs at the mercy of proprietary firmware (not just the hardware designs). Whether hardware design itself has backdoors is a different question, but we're not even at the stage of discussing that, cause it has clear software/firmware backdoors that everyone is totally ok with.
@namark Fact remains it runs on proprietary hardware and I have the option to buy open hardware if i prefer anyway.
@freemo On most hardware it doesn't run without proprietary software/firmware, so if what you mean that it does run by itself, fully OSS, you are wrong.
Reagarding open hardware, my whole point was most people don't have that option. The options that are there are "barely there"(most of the time thanks to people who are very much in favour of copyleft in hardware/software) and only for select few who have the luxury to pay premium and disregard the software ecosystem around them.
@freemo what are these percentages of? Number of licences written, projects using each, sloc governed by each…?
@khird Everything in the Whitesource dataset, some 4million+ projects. Though most trends I've seen all suggest the same pattern
@freemo Sure, I was just trying to understand how is that relevant. Just by itself... hmm, like:
"Yay! linux is not banned on firmware level!" ??
"Even though for most hardware it can be, even retroactively!!" ??
"Yay! Someone is pointing a gun at me, but it's totally ok, cause they didn't pull the trigger yet!" ??
"If they shoot me, I'll make sure to get myself some body armour" ??
@namark It shows a few things depending on which firmware or instance we are talking about
1) The firmware has been reverse engineered
2) the firmware was kept private but the specs on how to talk to it were provided
3) you need to download and use proprietary software to use it.
In my case #3 doesnt apply, I use all open source #1 shows my earlier comment that the superior open-source engineers will often win out anyway. #2 demonstrates my comment of vote with your wallet, because clearly the current market gives enough pressure to allow for #2 to occur in these cases.
Either way im good.
@freemo I see, that's not what I was referring to. What you say was true maybe a decade ago, when hardware vendors were kind of behind the curve.
Let me re-explain:
Today any CPU comes with another tiny invisible CPU inside it, that is in charge of starting up the system, or controlling it remotely(this is disclosed by the way, nobody is trying to hide it, it is there to remotely control the system). This tiny CPU is controlled by reprogrammable software. This software is usually proprietary. Certain important parts of it are usually not just proprietary but are protected from being reprogrammed, or in any way tempered with by a cryptographic key/signature, owned by the vendor. This software is perfectly happy to boot linux kernel today, but also perfectly capable to refuse to boot the any specific kernel, or temper with operation of the kernel at any time, remotely. You can't reverse engineer this, unless you find a vulnerability in their cryptography.
Even disregarding that:
1) Reverse engineered firmware/software is rarely superior to contemporary proprietary version. It only wins out for old hardware.
2) I don't see the point. Certain interface will need to be provided, if the hardware is to be used. It's the bare minimum to market the product. It's simply a result of hardware vendor being a separate company from the software vendor. If they were the same, there would be no spec. Also there is no way to guarantee that the published spec is even the full spec. People have found instructions in CPUs that were not documented/disclosed publicly.
3) I'm happy that you can afford to avoid this(again disregarding the CPU firmware), most people today can't. They didn't choose not to, they simply can't. For them it's proprietary software or being a hermit-hobo.
@freemo Thank you for this. I've watched with dismay as the community paints a picture of David V. Golliath around this licensing issue, when in fact the companies that they claim have been so horribly and unfairly victimized CHOSE to publish their software under a free and open for all license, and only when they realized money was being made by people other than them played the victim card. UNDERSTAND the license you choose and embrace the consequences.
@freemo If you had a special sandwich recipe and shared it with me, would you rather I also shared with you the fact that I made it better by adding bacon, or keep it a secret? The former is copy-left, the latter is permissive.
>This is just an example, but for free software, if a company modifies a permissively licensed source code and then makes the modifications proprietary, the original project gets no benefits from it
>And the free software will never be able to catch up because whenever they implement a different feature, the company can just take it.
This is why many people claim permissive licenses are not free software. You could never do this sort of thing to, for example, GCC. It is the reason why Google outright bans even installing apps made with AGPL on their employees phones. Because free software would prevent such theft.
@freemo I actually had the same opinion as you for a long time. Not anymore though, I strongly want to see *more* projects using copyleft licenses and less permissive licenses.
The way I think this works is, at first you're not advanced and you steal tech from advanced countries. When you're advanced enough that you start producing your own tech, you enable patent laws and grumble at the other guys that are developing and stealing your stuff.
I know that Britain did this about USA before the 20th century. And USA is doing this now about China.
From personal experience I know I used to pirate games when I was young. Then I made money and started buying games on Steam. Haven't pirated anything in about 10 years now.
Every form of software patent that isn't "we're putting the source in the goddamned patent gfy" is completely invalid, definitely, though.
patents create artificial barriers to competition. everything is a remix, patents and copyright are ways that we pretend that original content can exist. sharing, remixing, and modifying art, technology, and science are how progress happens.
>if the law itself is unjust, there is no reason to follow it. if the system enforcing the law is unjust, there is no reason to obey it
In some cases, the fact that you may be killed for not following or obeying is a damned good reason to obey and follow!
Yes but who is going to invest a couple billion dollars into something like inventing new medicine if the competition is going to have free access to it afterward?
That's why I think that patents are good for some period of time, enough to recoup investments. Then it goes into the common use pile.
This should be the same thing with copyright. Everyone should have the right to draw Mickey Mouse and sell their stuff right now. Copyright that extends for 100 years is broken and nonsensical. it is intellectual feudalism.
The medicine will be developed either way, and some of the most useful medicines in U.S. history were only useful because they were explicitly public domained (see: polio vaccine).
> prevent them from doing so
Then fight against lobbying. This is one big brained idea I've had for the longest time:
Run a patreon/kickstarter/whatever for lobbying for or against some idea. I imagine that if you do things right and you get 30 million people to kick in $10 for fighting against patent law,lobbyists you'd be able to do some good.
I guess I'm kinda in a middle ground, I don't care much about the linking clause of GPL but I would not use BSD or MIT either. For most of my projects I use either LGPL or AGPL.
I skimmed the thread and would like to remind (some) people on this that it's is perfectly possible to profit over copy-left software.
In my experience antagonizing people doesn't help. When I used to have to leave the house a lot, picket lines caused me much grief. Generally they were poor people asking for handouts. This only made me hate poor people and more of a minarchist.
In any case if I were a USAian I'd try that and if I failed at least I'd have made a nice cut for myself.
After, we now have multiple companies on 3-14nm in the U.S., Britain and Taiwan while other countries (and even other U.S. companies!) struggle to get to 30nm because of IP law.
It used to cost $5,000,000 to get a demo batch for a competitive chip, it now costs billions to. It's cheaper than ever resource-wise, the reason the price has gone up so much is for no other reason than pure rent-seeking.
It's definitely not a matter of low-hanging fruit, because there's an infinite amount of fruit, and it'll fall into your basket pretty easily, if you're allowed to have one.
I think copyright infringement is a felony only if you're copying the thing and selling it, as opposed to grabbing a pirate copy of a game and cracking it to play it on your own computer.
But of course I'm way too retarded to be a lawyer so consume the above with some salt.
How many transistors were in the before-patents era processors and how much are there now? Sure there's probably some automation dedicated to setting something like 18 billion transistors in that bit of wafer, but I don't think it's one dude turning the knob to it's next notch and then sending out a print order to a fab.
Also I don't believe there is a limitless amount of fruit. If this kind of thing were easy, we'd just say fuck it and jump to 1nm but discovering how here on fediverse. I think things get more complicated as you get further along in knowledge. It's easy to understand F=ma, I can do that. Understanding general relativity, I saw the math and I noped right out.
Doing transactions against APIs I can do. Understanding how to make AI work, or program quantum computers, the fuck no.
At some point you need the smartest people to make the ever more difficult breakthroughs and the rarer those people become as you walk towards the further reaches of that bell curve.
I could be wrong, I AM am moron. But I don't see a lot of strong intellectual property law enforcement in poor countries.
I think this is the case because of the length of patents. I think they should be lowered.
How do you define Taiwan's laws as being poor? Like, easy to break?
IDK, I feel less convinced that patent laws are super important after this argument, but i feel that giving people short ownership over their inventions is a good thing, still. Maybe a really short ownership for 2-3 years.
As far as I know the soviet program never got the results of the US one. True they got the Venera to venus, but all exploration of the rest of the solar system was basically a US endeavor. Europe has been doing cool space telescopes of late, but all the big stuff has been USA.
Kind of sad that USA doesn't spend 10% of the GDP on NASA like they did during the moonshot, but at the same time human space exploration is really not yet feasible. We have to find a way to cure cancer before having people live for long times in high energy environments like outer space.
While there's some level of prior knowledge required, you don't need to know a ton. The guy who created the most power-efficient processor (measuring power-per-instruction) managed to do it with a relatively small budget and a relatively massive chip. After reading a single book and trying it three times.
Right now he can't find anyone to print a chip he's already designed, that's something like fifty orders of magnitude more powerful than the one mentioned above, because it costs billions to get new chips in hardware, again because of how IP law promotes rent seeking. (He was also sued multiple times for violating the patents of...the previous two chips he designed.)
There's something up with that!
360 decision? Was that that military space station they launched on the energia rocket and instead of turning 180 it did 360 and re-entered the atmosphere? Probably something else, what as that?
Also economic ruin was achieved by trying to do economy top down. You can't do that. Economy works bottom up,.
I think, absolute best case, we can probably make Mars livable in thousands of years, and that's it
Well how much could getting lithography equipment cost for like really old stuff? 90nm or whatever. For a test product that might do. I'd put up $100 for a kickstarter for that kind of shit.
I mean I'm pretty sure I'm right about needing SOME intellectual property protection, but would I love to be proved wrong.
Same thing with communism. I would love to work 2 hours a day and have all my needs provided for, but I just don't see that kind of thing working in reality you know? The best way forward seems to always be somewhere in the middle of the extremes. You can't have no state, but a totalitarian state is bad also. So you have some state. Maybe a little state.
It'll probably be cheaper to just make asteroid sized rotating cilinders and live in there. If you could make one like that, with enough material, you could push it at sublight speed and make it get to another star eventually. This and AI chips is the only way people are getting away from Sol.
Yeah, but limiting the time means other people get their hands on it faster eventually. It's like me not buying games in the Epic store, I'll still get to play those games on my platform of choice for cheaper, I just have to wait one year. Will probably get a lot of bugs patched also. Kind of sucks but there are some games that can be made that maybe would not. It's not an ideal solution but ideal solutions only exist in mathematics, IMO.
Then it makes sense to just make them shorter? Say that Intel makes some discovery for substrates. AMD or ARM will eventually find out the same thing, and probably aren't so far behind. So, Intel keeps it for 3 years openly or risks AMD or ARM discovering it and patenting it themselves. I feel shorter patents are just closest to the ideal.
But whatever, I'm a moron, everything I say is mostly hunch anyway.
I thought long and hard on how to respond to this. Didn’t really come up with a satisfactory answer but here’s a weak summary in a PowerPointish presentation (Let’s hope Pleroma’s Markdown processor is relatively compliant! NB. I just checked and it doesn’t support # and ## so I guess we’ll do it in a way that kind of works):
No, it’s not really like that
- Size matters intensely.
For “test chips,” FPGAs are and should be used.
- FPGAs don’t work if you’re trying to test power efficiency, whether your design works in anything other than theoretical situations, etc.
- This doesn’t scale at all, which prevents niche uses being shopped via FPGA.
- Lithography equipment is prohibitively expensive.
What it’s actually like
(unless you’re one of the dozen companies already making high-volume high-success chips, or validated your design while you had institutional access to this)
You go and talk to something like MOSIS (USC sub-org)
- No, they don’t list prices.
- No, they don’t list estimates.
- Yes, they are going to try and see what’s the maximum they can get out of you.
- No, it didn’t use to be like this.
- If you manage to get an even remotely reasonable price from them (you won’t), figure out how to get half a billion or a billion or however many they quote you from venture capitalists.
- Keep in mind all the while that you’re trying to sell these capitalists on giving you that much money for a completely untested chip, and only a few dozen (if even) copies of that chip.
- Give up.
(By the way, @allison, you mentioned 14 earlier. 15 is minimum, and only for design patents. It used to be 14 for design patents, but got changed in 2016 IIRC. 20 on every other type of patent for a long while but I'm not sure when exactly.)
Can't see a large, positive deviation from the status quo happening.
I guess we can at least have our fun fighting windmills over the internet. I mean the system might be perfectible and, who knows, some tard that happened to read something like this may eventually become a person of power and help introduce change. Butterfly effect and all that.
Oh and I was just talking about getting that one guy who made the most efficient per-instruction processor someone mentioned that a guy wasn't able to get built built. Once you have that you get the compilers going and nerds have a new toy to play with.
Naturally, I lost my reply to this, but it was small, so whatever, I'll retype.
I agree with that, with a single caveat: there's a fair argument to be made that Stalinism's problem was two-fold: that the USSR didn't complete the transition to socialism fast enough, and as such never actually got it done, and that it stopped globalizing. If those two things happened, the situation may have looked much different.
I don't particularly like state capitalism or socialism, and planned economies in general don't really do the trick for me, either, but I feel like a fair rap needs to at least be given.
Were it that easy, Russia's (mostly) state-owned chip companies would be doing better than 90nm right now (which they're only able to do because they paid IBM a crazy amount).
The aforementioned Russian company is operating at a loss of $1.5 million a year right now and they barely do anything at all at this point, if I remember right.
If it weren't based on size and scale, then an FPGA could be used, but FPGAs mostly make sense for chips that are trying to do something conventional, and don't make sense for chips that only make sense when used at scale.
Yeah, I'm with @namark on this one.
That graph/trend is not good.
"Freedom" software enriches society because anyone at any moment can freely improve the software. A culture free to use and appropriate is a richer culture.
Monopolists are taking too much control over our softwares. We depend on software today for almost everything. The effects of monopoly in this area are more apparent each day.
well, that gave me a fright:
"huh? heh? wrong? me? what did I botch up this time?"
got to love sweet sweet context
Sorry to eavesdrop on your conversation, and intrude uninvited, but I smelled whiffs of "copyright is wrong -> GPL uses copyright -> GPL is wrong", and I would like to remind you that the way GPL uses it is - to troll the system, to twist and turn copyright around to make it destroy itself. And it is upfront about it, it doesn't try to pretend that copyright is good. There is no reason to not use it as a tool to achieve your goals today, in practise. Once you achieved the no copyright utopia, GPL will just be harmlessly deprecated.
@freemo I think you might be a bit out of context here but anyway... you present yet another argument that would work in free software paradise(where GPL is moot anyway), but doesn't work in proprietary software hell that you don't realize you exist in (and the only known way out of it today is GPL).
How exactly does GPL hurt someone who doesn't care about copyright, I don't understand, can you explain that? It only hurts them, if their forfeited their right specifically with the intention for someone else to take over the project and make it proprietary.
What do you mean you can't "merge". As in "you can't make derivative work, that allows future derivative work to be proprietary?". Yeah, that's the whole point?? You're not explaining how is that hurting someone who doesn't care about copyright or proprietary software. It only hurts someone who has premeditated intention to make a proprietary fork/derivative work.
That would depend on which varient of the GPL. In some cases you cant even link to the code, in other cases it includes derrivative work.
Yes I am aware that is the "whole point", and that whole point is why the vast majority of the open source community is dropping the GPL in preference of less viral licenses that do not hinder other open-source projects growth and development.
@mewmew For the purposes of this you can assume the most vicious type of GPL.
You are avoiding my question... and basically saying "everyone does this therefore it's right".
Also I never seen of a project that adopted GPL(understanding the point, not by mistake or misunderstanding) drop GPL.
There are TONS of major projects developed en-masse that were forced to drop GPL due to its viral nature and has seen been replaced by a permissive licensed alternative, usually consisting of a large portion of th original developers. But of course due to the viral nature of hte GPL they were forced to rewrite their own code from scratch and waste time.
I'm suprised with it being so common you never heard of it, you must be a bit out of touch with the community. The move from X11 to xorg years back was specifically to drop the GPL license for example.
"viral nature" is a feature, not a bug, it doesn't need excusing. there are many copyleft licenses compatible with GPL, its not the GPL is trying to perpetuate itself for the heck of it, its trying to perpetuate software freedom. ensuring a software AND its derivatives are free is the point.
@kick @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @namark
You can call it whatever you want, feature, bug.. The point is it prevents free and open source from functioning well. It has the same failing as communism, there must be 100% compliance and use of the license or else the license does more harm than good.
Not something I have any interest in arguming. I'm more than happy to see it is being abandoned as as a license as it should be and the open-source community can get back to being productive and not infected by viral licenses for much longer.
> The move from X11 to Xorg years back was specifically to drop the GPL license for example.
That's a lie, and an incredibly stupid one at that. The move was from xfree86 to X.org, not X11 (which is the protocol), because xfree86 was incompatible with the GPLv2, and relicensed in a way that made it less compatible with the GPLv2. X.org was a fork to avoid those license changes.
Yes your correct it was from XFree, my mistake. And no its not a lie what you just said is 100% what I said
"because xfree86 was incompatible with the GPLv2,"
Yea because of its VIRAL nature it wasnt compatible with permissive licenses.
Yes the XOrg foundation after that made a strict policy that all their software must use permissive licenses and copyleft (like the GPL) licenses would no longer be permitted. Now XOrg is no longer GPL in any of its core tools.
@kick XFree used to be a mix of GPL components and BSD like components, the virality of the GPL became an issue, at one point they tried to modify the BSD components to make them compatible with the GPL however there were still concerns about the compatibility and now the XOrg foundation policy is to completely reject GPL components from its distribution and ensure none of the code they distribute contains GPL components anymore. You can no longer contribute your own code to the distribution releases if it contains GPL licensing structure.
@kick No I'm an actual Open-source contributor who was involved with it and many similar issues with software throughout the years.
There are really good writeups explaining exactly what I just said, I suggest you read up on the history a bit before you dig yourself in too deep.
@kick But I'm out, once the personal attacks start I know there is no good reason for me to stick around. Please don't continue to tag me, thanks.
Yes I wasn't aware of that, and I am out of touch with many things. It comes with a benefit of having my own arguments and not referring to others and saying "they are important people and they did it".
Many big projects were license under GPL by misunderstanding. Many big and famous group working on FOSS software, care about money more than freedom. That includes linux if you want an even bigger example. That doesn't change the argument.
I wouldn't blame someone for pursuing success or wealth in current industry and having to "play by the rules". I would criticize them however if they say they are doing it for freedom, when it is clear that they are not.
Seeking money doesnt make you bad and it is no garuntee you are anti-freedom. If someone takes my open source product and adds something of value on top of it and wants to sell the product they created, let them. I'm not so bitter that I am going to wrongfully mistake that as a bad thing.
I'm aware of his personal opinions. Good share. Doesnt change the fact that the viral nature of the GPL caused huge issues and the need for a policy to reject it.
By his own logic what would have also been better for the project is if people didnt use a viral license to make those contributions he had to reject in the first place. So even then the issue was the GPL license and had they used a different non-viral license it would have been a non-issue.
permissive licenses arent unfree, so moot point. If someone takes your code and changes it they can not preent your original code from being free. The only portion that is "unfree" is the part they themselves wrote and contributed. So they are not making the free part unfree, they are simply adding an unfree part on top of a free part. So yes, that is freedom, freedom to do exactly that.
I didn't say anything makes anyone bad. What I'm trying to say is if you value freedom over money, you'll use GPL in todays climate. It sacrifices money for freedom, and the only reason to not use it is if that sacrifice is unacceptable for you, for whatever reasons. Could be good reasons, could be bad, but nevertheless that's what you are doing. Success in current climate of domination by proprietary software(and the mindset that it is natural) vs freedom.
software containing unfree and free code is still unfree. it is using free software, exploiting it really, to create unfree software. and its not as simple as "theres a public domain of code, you can use it for free software and I'll use it for proprietary software". projects are often forked and deprecated. almost every stock aosp app has been.
@kick @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @namark
"nothing wrong with non free software" and "freedom to make money" is the crux of our disagreement then. you're free to make money in all sorts of exploitative ways, and that's a bad thing. proprietary forks of permissive licensed software are much like buying public property and selling it to people.
@kick @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @namark
The analogy fails because public property, unlike software, can not be infinitely replicated.
If i sell public property you are deprived of your original property.
If i take free software, add non-free components and sell my non-free components then I have not taken anything from the people, they still have their free software and are still free to use it.
Someone making money doesnt mean someone else somewhere must be deprived of wealth. Money/wealth is not a zero sum game.
I keep asking you to explain how exactly GPL cripples you, unless you have intentions to go proprietary. You ignore my question and go on tangents that eventually lead you to "I explicitly want to make(or allow someone else to make) my project proprietary, and I think it's fine because most other people think it's fine". There is nothing else that GPL restricts.
It's like a license on a gun saying "you may not use it to participate in duels to death, unless to stop the duel", in a society where duals to death are leagal and are the accepted norm. And you are arguing that not allowing duels to death is against freedom.
I explained several times. It prevents you from including in free and open-source projects with incompatible licenses (virality).
We covered this with the XFree example where they had to bar all GPL code from their distribution because its viral nature made it legally impossible to incude the software in the same package as other permissive licenses.
Yes, the gun also doesn't allow you just change the slide that has the license statement printed on it, and suddenly make it legal in a duel. It's even more vicious, it says that if you use any part of it as a spare for another gun, the license applies to that gun too. It's very mean because it's very much against duels.
Again I'm not familiar with that specific example, but from what others have described here, it seems that the new owners of the factory were ok with duels, and it was very painful for them to recall all the existing guns, and remake the tooling to not engrave the "no-duels" license.
I don't see the argument. It's good that it was hard for them. And it's sad that for whatever reasons they are ok with duels(or can't afford to not be ok with duels).
I never said GPL doesnt do what it intends to do. It intends to be viral and force others adopt their ideology. Thats also why its failing and people stopped using it.
So yea maybe you see it as a good thing because you see money as evil. Thats fine, but the GPL is dying and good riddance to it.
Most of us who use permissive license uphold freedom first, money is secondary. I see no reason one would need to prevent someone from making money off a piece of software before you think it becomes free.
Freedom is, as the name implies, not restricting what a person can do.
Of course, in perfect society where most people are like you. In current reality there is an obvious problem that you choose to ignore for some reason.
I won't press you anymore on this subject, and I'm sorry if it felt confrontational, I get too carried away sometimes.
not obligated, no, but the decision isn't a morally neutral one. open source is more ethical than closed, if not from a consumer protection perspective then from a fundamental "information needs to be free" perspective. I'm curious, how do you feel about DRM?
@kick @mewmew @StaticallyTypedRice @namark
@georgia No making money is no less moral than open-sourcing. It is however less charitable, but there is nothing wrong with that.
As for DRM i feel much as I do about open-source.. Namely I wont buy anything that has DRM on it, I buy things without DRM. If that isnt available I dont follow or listen to the artist. I would not produce DRM content but others are free to do so.
If one cares for freedom, they should guarantee freedom in future.
Freedom to remove freedom ends somewhere undesirable.
@fossasap You can't garuntee a future. The more you try to control others (reduce their personal freedom) in the name of freedom, yyou will fail IMO. Freedom at its root means people are free to decide for themselves their own ethics.
Making non-free software, is an insult and violation of others' freedom. Giving freedom to violate freedom is not genuine freedom.