“We need new licenses. A new culture that prioritizes the freedom of people from exploitation over the freedom of software.” (23:00)
3 Likes
Once again Stallman is proven right.
2 Likes
So as I see it, FOSS is trapped in a real conundrum here. How do you reap the benefits of free access to the source code while at the same time guaranteeing a sustainable economic compensation structure for its developers?
On the one hand, free access to the source allows greedy scoundrels (some of which are tech giants) to just take the code and make money with it without paying or contributing back.
On the other hand, choosing to close the source code also closes the door to the many benefits of open source software development (many eyeballs, contributions, etc.)
One interesting idea mentioned in the talk is to integrate a billing infrastructure into package managers, basically turning them into a kind of app marketplace. But even in this scenario, the greedy scoundrels would be able to take the source and run with it. I think this is the most difficult problem facing modern software development to date.
I don’t buy it.
The value of open source software comes mostly from the freedoms it brings, not the price tag. And the more free, the more valuable. If you force any kind payment (or non-payment or pretty much any other restriction for that matter) you immediatly make the software worthless because it is no longer open source (as in freedom), but effectively non-free and just “source available”.
Also, there are hundreds of thousands of devs involved in open source development that are getting paid in one way or another. I don’t see how adding new payment models fundamentally changes that in any way. New payment systems are fine, but not if they reduce freedom in anyway. That is just reduces value.
I think the underlying issue is really just that a lot of open source devs highly over value their own contributions. If their work were so important they would find others willing to support them. The whole companies-are-evil-for-using-the-thing-i-gave-them-for-free argument is silly nonsense. If you want a big company to pay you for your work apply for a job. If you don’t want to work for big corporate, try one of the other dozen or so models. If non of them work out, maybe it’s simply not that valuable.
3 Likes
I finally finished watching this. I had a really hard time understanding his position or if he had any alternative. It’s okay to complain without an alternative, but you have to also temper it with the thought that it might be the best of many worse options. I heard a lot of complaining, but not even a hint at anything that could possibly be implemented and keep things as Free Software.
At first I sympathized with him. I used to release everything under MIT or BSD licenses (I went to Berkeley for CS so I kind of liked that whole link I think more than anything. I took classes from Dr McKusick himself the author of BSD, went to his house to hang out, etc. so I cherished the Berkeley alum status I think more than the license idea). I ate dinner with RMS a few times and still didn’t get the FSF thing.
However, a number of years later I see that RMS was right and now release everything under GPL Affero most often, GPL, and rarely LGPL – nothing else. I have seen how all the largest tech companies in the world (except MS) were built on the backs of GNU and they rarely contribute shit. Google and Amazion throw out a few libraries but think of all the tools they use that are GNU related.
99% of all devs owe their career to the FSF and yet I hear all these people just rip into them… then go back to their GNU Linux box and pretend like they owe nothing to the FSF. Think of where Google would be without GNU software? They would not be where they are today, but there is so liitle appreciation for them. I hear people rip on RMS as if their career isn’t soaked in GNU tooling. People have no sense of history, like all this just came out of thin air.
GNU and the FSF started because Stallman wanted to fix a printer driver but the printer company wouldn’t let him see the source so he made his own and released it. Without his vision the computer industry would be miles behind where it is today.
People need to stop releasing under those non Copyleft licenses. It only really gives companies more freedom, not individuals. And it gives them the power to just keep taking and never giving back. With like Affero even cloud providers have to give if they aren’t releasing a product to consumers. But that extra freedom now just translates into less freedom in the future. The point of copyleft is to keep the freedom forever. I think it is extremely short sighted to release under permissive licenses. I used to, and I was wrong.
But this guy then goes on to argue for essentially source available to subscribers and he doesn’t understand how a company keeps track of costs. Does he think devs will just be allowed to automatically purchase things though their package managers? LOL. That will be turned off so fast.
He doesn’t seem to understand how the economy works. It doesn’t run on feels. It runs on mutually beneficial exchange. You aren’t supposed to rely on the goodwill of others. You rely on the fact that you both have something the other wants - mutual interest to exchange those things.
So the true question why do people release under permissive licenses? What benefit are they getting and how can copyleft licenses be changed to provide that and pull people back into them? I have no idea why people release under MIT or similarly permissive licenses. Those were made for academic from huge universities that have endowments and trying to keep the source closed and charge for it was going to be more hassle that it was worth to them. They are supposed to create things and publish them. That is their goal. But individuals, no clue why they do it.
In the end I felt cheated by the talk. I didn’t learn anything, he had no useful ideas, and I couldn’t even understand his position at times. I’m hungry.
2 Likes
People need to stop releasing under those non Copyleft licenses. It only really gives companies more freedom, not individuals. And it gives them the power to just keep taking and never giving back. With like Affero even cloud providers have to give if they aren’t releasing a product to consumers. But that extra freedom now just translates into less freedom in the future. The point of copyleft is to keep the freedom forever. I think it is extremely short sighted to release under permissive licenses. I used to, and I was wrong.
One area where the traditional [AL]?GPL falls flat is libraries, specifically, uncompiled source libraries like header-only libraries or Zig libraries. The MPL2 resolves most of these by applying the copyleft on a source-file basis.
2 Likes
I just read the MPL2 license and a little about it, and it does seem good for things like header only and source libraries.
“Mozilla”. That’s a name I haven’t heard in a minute.
1 Like
People don’t need to do anything you want them to do. Telling other people what to do is not how you grow freedom.
I release all my software under a MIT license because I want it to be free. Literally free, for companies, individuals, everyone. I don’t need or want anyone, company or individual or whoever, to give anything back. Nothing at all. Once I give that freedom it is permenant forever. No one, not even me, can “unrelease” some software I released and somehow magically make it unfree. That is a nonsense argument.
If some company took the humble crap I released under MIT and decided to continue it’s development behind closed doors and some day sell their services to willing customers I’d wish them the very best success for the future. I hope they employ thousands of poor starving software engineers and feed all their families. That would not change the “freeness” of my software in any way and it might make me rather happy.
5 Likes
They won’t. They will let the software community keep developing for them, taking and never giving back changes they made. It is weren’t for the FSF and copyleft the software industry wouldn’t be the thriving like it does now. All the Free GNU tools that almost everybody relies on day to day would be a shadow of themselves with numerous proprietary branches.
While it might be giving everybody freedom now, I find it very shortsighted. It also robs the future of reaping the benefits of getting changes reintegrated into the original and making an overall better product.
I used to think the exact same way and release everything under BSD or MIT, but after years of watching companies just take and take and never give back I’ve changed my mind. I refuse to let others deprive future developers even if that mean I have to place restrictions on current companies. I’m okay with that.
Sorry, but none if this is true. Where are all the proprietary branches branches of X11? llvm? vim? BSD? Open Source thrives today because of the value proposition. It has nothing to do with the GPL. The FSF would love you to believe that, but it simply isn’t true.
1 Like
Except for vim (all editors are kind of niche) the rest have had many proprietary counterparts.
The BSD one especially so. It is what started the Unix wars.
And you will never know about proprietary branches of the rest because they are kept internally. I wokred at a few places that since they don’t release code to the public keep prop branches. I think that means we need stronger copyleft not weaker.
Exactly my point. None of them survived their open source master branches.
And what value would that bring exactly? Restrictions never add value. Anyway, copyleft does not and likely cannot prevent private branches.
I don’t really see any point in discussing this any further. Especially not here.
1 Like
And all their changes are lost – including the good ones. The main projects and future is worse off for it
Agreed. thank you for the conversation.
just read something that reminded me of the discussion here:
Can’t remember if Witney mentioned this aspect in his talk, but people looking for software engineering as a career might get the impression that on has to contribute to open source, and come up with their own super cool open source project. I imagine that leads to a lot of BS.
Concerning the talk (OP), licensing? Worth a though. Made me think about it, so was worth watching. In the end I think it comes down to personal preference (what do you think is the best for all etc.), and circumstances (targeted audience, employer etc.).
2 Likes