namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@mtknn@cybre.space
You are correct that we don't live in a perfect world, but GPL is not a license for perfect world. It's a specifically designed weapon to combat proprietary software. And you should use it today if you can. In perfect world nobody would need GPL.
@mtknn@cybre.space
Whaaa? nooo, I did not classify you as enemyyy... I just like arguing, sometimes too much I guess. If it felt like an attack to you, I apologize.
I'm just trying to illustrate how FOSS(GPL like not permissive) allows building an industry that will pay software developers directly, instead of industry being controlled by a few owners that exploit archaic laws, then hire software developers and pay them breadcrumbs. It seems like that's what you want as well, but you can't see past the arbitrary unnatural social/market norms set by proponents of proprietary software and abuse of copyright. They made a virtual shop with virtual goods, somehow managed to convinced people it's real, and are now doing everything in their power to directly or indirectly justify and maintain that illusion, or otherwise continue to dominate the market.
@mtknn@cybre.space
ummm... are you talking about some tiny hobby projects?? Most actually successful FOSS projects have paid developers working on them, and these days there are even examples of them being paid by a community of informed users. You might need uncompensated labour to get it started today, but my whole point was that it doesn't have to be that way, and it's only that way because of proprietary software norm.
You claimed paid support never worked out, but you refuse address why it didn't work out. The answer is proprietary software.
You whole argument about gift economy hinges on software development being a production. It's not. Software development is R&D, or maintenance. It's a service. That's what most developers do and that's what most of them are paid for today. No body needs to do any work or expend any resource for you to get the copy of the so called "product". This is a fact and the only reason your so called "market economy of proprietary software"(which is a complete misnomer here) works, is because of absolutely artificial and violations of human rights, such as DRM.
Finally the whole point of GPL is that it can not be exploited like the permissive licenses. If you don't even understand that, than I guess you are not trying to understand, and just want to "win" the argument.
@mtknn@cybre.space
Actual developers get paid for actually developing software, not for allowing/disallwiing other people to copy it. Setting it up is a challenge just like any business of course, especially when the status quo is copyright abuse, but it's not impossible.
Informed users can support the developer to do R&D, on their free will, with full understanding of what they are paying for.
For general public, companies providing warranty for specific distribution is something that GPL explicitly allows. Wouldn't it be nice if software had quality standards and came with actual warranty, like any other engineering product, instead of the mess that it is now? Wouldn't it be nice to have local developer agencies/workshops, offering services to general public(fixing, modding and warranty)?
I think that kind of businesses would be feasible if most software is under GPL like license.
@cancel good for nobody, I approve!
@cancel Again I'll have to ask you for an example of such a thing with AGPL license on it. For that kind of software the users are people running the servers, not those using the servers.
AGPL allows anyone else small or big to run the same service, identical to the big companies service.
Permissive licenses allow the big company to build a proprietary fork and establish monopoly.
@neauoire meanwhile GPL battleships are lined up in the docks, but nobody wants to sail them...
@felix@radical.town 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.
@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 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" ??
@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 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.
@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 :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.
@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".
@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 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?
@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.
