namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@cancel Umm... You really think most software is free? do you realize that all personal computers(or CPUs in general) today don't work without proprietary firmware, and don't work well without proprietary software? Or that most online services that people have problems with run proprietary or permissively licensed software funded by proprietary software companies? Or that the proprietary software dominating the market in the past and now, proliferating itself as the accepted norm has hindered the progress in the industry?
If you don't see that as a problem I don't think I can convince you, I'm clearly failing.
@cancel you failed to provide examples of that. You only provide very few examples of loopholes in GPL 2, in projects that didn't even care for GPL or software freedom anyway
@cancel Yes and keep going.
You are saying:
GPL 2 is being worked around, lets give up and submit to our proprietary software overlords.
In my opinion all free software you have today is because GPL 2, however flawed, worked to some degree, and continues to work, and the newer version work better.
@cancel They are not clones, they are technically inferior in many ways. Still some people use them.
@cancel that's what I'm saying... where's the AGPL software? Instead of writing AGPL people abandon GPL entirely and help proprietary software even more with permissive licenses.
@cancel That is false, it is not entirely open source. If it was there would be numerous clones of it, that would even federate with it in terms of video content.
@cancel I'm not convinced that it complies with AGPL, and am still waiting for an example of AGPL software used in this way. While all your examples are not even GPL 3.
@cancel Or no, I guess you meant hat since youtube has a monopoly, it everyone will still use youtube, even if equivalent alternative exists. Well what if a better alternative exists? Faster, better UI, better rules? youtube can't compete with the entire world if the software was free and open source.
@cancel Well I'm not an expert in what AGPL covers in this context. I only know vaguely what it's for. If there is a loophole with ffmpeg and youtube, then it needs to be patched, not the whole idea abandoned cause one thing didn't work out.
@cancel There is no point in running youtube on your local machine. The point is that other people or companies would be able to offer the same service. Are you saying that no other server is capable of running youtube's software?
@cancel well, ffmpeg is yet another piece of software stuck with GPL 2, and even LGPL 2, which is almost MIT levels of tame (Probably what Linus would have taken given the option)
@cancel I didn't say it won in general, It was more like a small victory, in niche market. It was mostly thanks to linux, and I already explained why even linux is problematic.
You claim that gmail and youtube run on GPL software. Can you tall exactly what GPL software. Cause if it's just linux than same argument of it not really being GPL (or not wanting to be GPL) applies.
@cancel This would have been possible and even easier to do with permissively licensed software. I don't understand how GPL specifically made this possible or encouraged this. Most people run windows, and most servers would have been running windows, if not for GPL software you mentioned in my opinion. Most people on windows also run browsers. Why didn't proprietary software save them from that?
I really think GPL has nothing to do with web browsers, taking over native apps. I don't see the connection.
@cancel hmmm... I assumed you are familiar with the FOSS movement, and the problems with proprietary software it usually describes. Again I suggest you to seek other sources, because I'm clearly not explaining well, but here is a quick rundown:
Users can't run it on their machines freely, as they wish. They can't modify or fix it. They can't share it. They can't verify what it's doing.
I'm not sure if that's clear. These fundamental violations result in greater consequences I tried to outline before, such as formulation of the monopolies, mass surveilance, censorship. As more and more aspects of our life starts to involve software more and more violations are made possible through the same mechanisms.
@cancel So, because some things didn't work out people should just give up?
I don't see how GPL has driven people to run software on remote computers. Can you explain? Most GPL software I know of is designed to run on personal computers, but I'm might be biased because I'm not in the field of networking.
I believe I didn't mix up the two points and addressed them both, each in it's own paragraph, but maybe I was not clear enough.
I don't know why are you talking about some general notion ethical problems. The GPL solves a specific problem, that problem is called proprietary software. Proprietary software is not some nebulous concept, the mechanisms that make it what it is are very specifically codified in law. GPL attempts to circumvent this law by very spocific legal verbiage. There is nothing vague here, at least not as vague as general ethics.
If you are not familiar with the specific set of human rights and ethical problems(which is not all human rights and ethical problems that ever existed or will exist) associated with proprietary software, I suggest you read up on FOSS movement, cause I can't really explain that better than it was already explained many times before. TLDR: it creates an unnatural and very strong monopoly that is based on violating people's freedoms. One specific instance of a bad thing, not all possible bad things ever.
I say GPL stops proprietary software. You argue "GPL doesn't solve all problems of the world".
@cancel You are taking this completely out of context. I didn't say GPL will save the world and stop all crime. I said it will stop software monopolies that exploit the rights of the users of the software without needing to break laws or even conditions of random text files.
Also, while I admit I didn't look very hard and that it's absolutely irrelevant, I didn't find any references to violation of GPL in that link. Even if some organization or individuals do violate GPL, it's still not a valid argument. It's equivalent of saying "some people break the law, therefore law is useless". Most megacorps are terrified of GPL, and they clearly demonstrate that by never acknowledging the existence of FOSS movement or directly/publicly confronting it, and pouring a lot of money in proprietary or permissively licensed alternatives of existing GPL software.
@namark@mastodon.gamedev.place what?! who the hell are you?! I control both accounts!
@brown121407@fosstodon.org there might be some pleasant surprises though, if you're lucky. I went in once to learn some c++, came out knowing what 'replaca' and 'replacd' are instead.
