I'm really happy to see the trend in FOSS :opensource: licenses is moving towards MIT and Apache like licenses and we are seeing GPL like licenses being abolished slowly.

Free means Free!

ยท 9 ยท 7 ยท 11

@freemo :D
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.

@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.

@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

@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 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.

Show more

@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 @namark "I'm not classist" and that's the problem, because the bourgeoisie is

@felix ouch, lil' tankie, no, "classism" is not appropriate response to "classism", just like any ism is not appropriate response to itself. GPL protects everyone from being exploited by proprietary software, it doesn't exclude any specific group of people, based on some vague characterization or something.


@namark @freemo right, i prefer the term "class solidarity". have fun being a bootlicker.

@lupyuen @freemo Did you ask prior contributors (it looks like there are many) to sign a CLA? If not, relicensing anything but your own contributions won't be legal.

@kick @freemo yup I'll just handle my own tiny contribution for now... Make it easier for others to change the collective licensing later ๐Ÿ˜€

@freemo what are these percentages of? Number of licences written, projects using each, sloc governed by eachโ€ฆ?

@khird Everything in the Whitesource dataset, some 4million+ projects. Though most trends I've seen all suggest the same pattern

@freemo I would like to see a similar chart where the unit is dollars, not projects.

@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.

@freemo I think copy-left vs permissive is mostly a matter of taste. I would not like to have my software given back to me without the source code.

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.

@freemo There is room for both Copyleft and Permissive style licenses.

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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful

We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.