Slashdot Mirror
Software Freedom Conservancy Asks For Supporters
paroneayea writes: Software Freedom Conservancy is asking people to join as supporters to save both their basic work and GPL enforcement. Conservancy is the steward of projects like Samba, Wine, BusyBox, QEMU, Inkscape, Selenium, and many more. Conservancy also does much work around GPL enforcement and needs 2,500 members to join in order to save copyleft compliance work. They list some of the past year's successes, too, including fighting for and successfully earning "an exemption from the Library of Congress in the DMCA review process to legally permit circumvention of encryption on Smart TVs, ensuring that you are free to hack on the devices that you legally own."
java multicore can enforce gpl, you just need multicore java (x86/arm okay, 32/64 okay). need multicore. maybe 4 cores? dunno.
You are all Cows. Cows say Moooo. Mooo! Mooo! Moo cows Mooo! Mooo say the cows. YOU EMULATED COWS!!!
You sexist assholes, why have you chosen such a sexist dumbass name?
You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOO! MOOOO! Moo cows MOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU CODER COWS!!
It's restrictive open source licensing, which means you're free to use it however you wish so long as you subscribe to their ideology and their interpretation of freedom. It is a childish game of not playing nice with anybody who's ideology is not compatible with yours. Permissive FOSS and non-free software can work together and the onus on what gets released as source is on whoever wrote it.
The GPLv2 was even too restricted for Free Software's poster child Linux which is why it includes license preamble that overrides parts of the GPL to allow it to operate with proprietary software.
So I guess this means you don't use any proprietary software at all, given the onerous terms in those click-thru agreements? Liar.
Free Software is for geeks and for backend stuff, giving everybody the freedom to modify software even if they release the source just leads to craploads of fragmentation and inconsistent platforms like we see with Android which is exactly why they now have the proprietary Google Play Services for new features.
Free Software needs to provide innovation, not just follow others. AOSP was a prime target to fork and create a fully free mobile operating system (just like Libre/Open Office did when they were given the proprietary StarOffice codebase) yet it wasn't done. Still we see that community just coming up with me-too also-ran clones of proprietary products, if the Free Software ideology is so much better than proprietary then why didn't it produce the iPhone or the iPad or SmartTVs or smart wearables or virtual reality or augmented reality? Hell even the desktops and laptops still require proprietary hardware and microcode. Where's the competitive CAD, CAM, CAE software? Or audio, video and image production? Or games? Or engineering and process simulation applications?
Free software has its place in utilities and backend infrastructure because it is developed by developers for developers. But for some reason it fails spectacularly when it comes to innovation and consumer products.
The right for somebody to create closed-source derivatives is something that should be protected. Not protecting it is merely the act of taking away freedom.
Your saying your not free unless you have the right to deprive others of freedom...
The same arguments where used to justify slavery.
Perhaps they are trying to be too nice, perhaps they shouldnâ(TM)t be trying to make friends of the corporations that choose to violate the communities principles.
Seems like they are going to make a choice between enforcing the GPL in a friendly way or not at all.
I respect their efforts very much, but i would rather see them become more militant, take as much money as they can get from the wilfully ignorant, and not be afraid of making enemies.
Your saying your not free unless you have the right to deprive others of freedom...
No freedom is about not restricting what other people do. If I give you a binary without source for free with no encumbrances I am not restricting you or taking away freedom from you. If I give you source code for free with no encumbrances I am not restricting your freedom. That is why they are called "restrictive" licenses because they are not free, they restrict your freedom.
The same arguments where used to justify slavery.
Stop pretending like this is in any way anything to do with slavery, you arent being forced into anything here so dont be an idiot.
Freedom is about having control of your own actions, Power is about having control of others.
Permissive licences like BSD permit you to deny freedom to other other people, to have power over them.
Copyleft are called restrictive because it forbids you from having power over other people, it requires you to pass on the freedoms you where granted.
BSD doesnt force you to take power from other people, just like slavery didnt force people to buy slaves. But it happened.
Freedom is about having control of your own actions, Power is about having control of others.
by those definitions in the case of the GPL you do not have freedom because the author dictates what you can do and the author of the original work has power over you. In the case of BSD you have freedom, but you do not have power over anybody else, you cannot dictate what they can and cannot do.
Permissive licences like BSD permit you to deny freedom to other other people, to have power over them.
That is wrong, they do not force you to give your source code to other people and they are not entitled to it. You have no power over them to dictate what they can and cannot do.
Copyleft are called restrictive because it forbids you from having power over other people
The author has power over you. If you offer simply a binary you do not have power over anybody.
it requires you to pass on the freedoms you where granted.
You do not need to, the freedoms you were granted were to modify the original program and that freedom is extended to everybody regardless.
BSD doesnt force you to take power from other people, just like slavery didnt force people to buy slaves. But it happened.
You defined power: " Power is about having control of others " this certainly seems like something that should be taken away, permissive licenses do not give an author any power over the authors or users of derivatives.
Trivializing slavery to be compared to not giving the code for a derived work (that is entirely optional and their choice whether to use or not) even though everybody has the same rights to the original is frankly disgustingly offensive. Get educated so you can have some respect.
The same arguments are being used to justify capitalism. The freedom to steal common resources and to exploit people is sacred.
But I bet you think you're entitled to the work of others with movies, music, books, and other copyrighted material. In fact, I know you do feel you are. I have seen you post such and we can go through your post history.
I don't want to support, or otherwise be involved with, GPL enforcement. It sounds to me like it's the creator of a piece of software dictating exactly what I can and can't do with it.
Wrong, the GPL only refers to the distribution of the software, and here the only requirement is that you pass on all the freedoms that were given to you when you received the software. For what you actually use the software this is completely up to you, in fact restricting the use of the software (e.g. "non-commercial only" or "no military use") is incompatible with the GPL.
The right for somebody to create closed-source derivatives is something that should be protected. Not protecting it is merely the act of taking away freedom.
Here you contradict yourself, because by distributing a closed-source derivative of some free software is taking away the freedom to create a derivative from your modified version.
"Get educated so you can have some respect" - Anonymous Coward
To comprehend what i said you need understand the difference between "permit" and "force".
If this organization is just involved in enforcing GPL copyleft on the GPL packages like Samba, WINE, et al, I'm fine w/ them. However, if they are involved in horning in on projects that are not GPL, I agree w/ you.
That's not what he said. He said that he wants to use software anyway he likes - including mixing it w/ proprietary packages when and where needed. He can do that w/ BSD, but not w/ GPL.
Permissive licences like BSD permit you to deny freedom to other other people, to have power over them.
Copyleft are called restrictive because it forbids you from having power over other people, it requires you to pass on the freedoms you where granted.
BSD does nothing of the sort. It allows the user to do whatever they like w/ packages, such as distribute them w/ a mixture of open source and closed source binaries. Like if some of the binaries in a package have patents that the open sourced BSD licensed source package doesn't have, the BSD license allows a combination of it being passed on to other people. So if you take such a combination package and pass it to me, you are not passing to me any freedoms other than the ones that you received. I can still tinker w/ the open sourced part of it, while keeping the closed source parts as they are. And I can pass on the modified or unmodified version on down the line, w/ the same freedoms - and 'lack thereof' - that I had received. It doesn't make me a slavery enabling agent.
In more practical terms, however, this is not about the great religion of St iGNUcius. It's about the fact that some open source packages require closed source packages that are patent protected in order to be useful, and under the BSD banner, they are allowed so that they provide the full functionality that the user needs. Under the FSF, it's more important for the user to have a useless piece of junk that he is at liberty to fully modify, regardless of whether it serves his purpose or not. That's why you don't have those endless debates over NVIDIA's or AMD's GPU drivers in BSD the way you do in Linux. BSD provides them in the way they are provided for by the vendors in question.
Totally bogus argument. We are talking about the GPL pretending it's a software that promotes freedom, when it is more restrictive than other licenses, such as the BSD license. The entities who directly benefit from the software freedom conservancy should be the ones paying for it. Or they can just change their license to BSD and continue to give the source away ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Wrong. If I create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licensed software, I am NOT taking an freedom away from others. They are free to use it or not, same as people are free to not use GPL'd software if they don't want to abide by the terms of the GPL.
The BSD license allows code to propagate without putting restrictions on the person passing it on to others, unlike the GPL.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You can have maybe 10$ per year, prefilling with such a big number puts me right off.
If you create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licenced software AND DISTRIBUTE IT, the derivative is not as free as the original.
Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original.
They dont have the ability to modify the original parts of the derivative once its binary only.
And be honest with yourself, if you create a closed source derivative of BSD licensed software would you be doing it mostly for the benefit of yourself or for others ?
Absolute freedom is a fantasy, absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them), once that happens freedom is no longer absolute.
If you create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licenced software AND DISTRIBUTE IT, the derivative is not as free as the original. Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original. They dont have the ability to modify the original parts of the derivative once its binary only.
And be honest with yourself, if you create a closed source derivative of BSD licensed software would you be doing it mostly for the benefit of yourself or for others ?
Absolute freedom is a fantasy, absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them), once that happens freedom is no longer absolute.
The distributed binary is just as free as the original binary. And they DO have the EXACT SAME freedom I have - to develop their own derivative from the same source I used. Not my problem if they don't have the talent - they can always hire someone else to do it. What they don't have is the right to tell me what I have to do.
If I create a closed-source bsd-licensed derivative, OR my own completely original or derivative BSD-licensed code, that is MY choice. The people who have hired me to work on software, either as an employee or as a contractor, didn't give out the source code, and that is why they could afford to pay me. Same with almost everyone who works in the software biz. Open source is not a obligatory, nor is it desirable in many cases (like when you want to eat).
However, closed source does NOT limit other people's freedoms - they are, as I pointed out, free to use the same original source to make their own derivative. And they're free to release the source or not when they distribute binaries, as they wish, unlike the GPL.
There is nothing preventing users of the derivative to develop their own version using their own skills to create their own derivative from the same source I use, so users have the same freedoms I have. If they don't have the skills, sucks to be them but I don't owe it to them to give them my source. They have other options, such as paying someone else to develop their own derivative.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
BSD does nothing of the sort. It allows the user to do whatever they like w/ packages ... It doesn't make me a slavery enabling agent.
No it doesnt automatically make you a slavery enabling agent, but it does permit you to be slavery enabling agent.
You said it yourself, BSD allows users to do whatever they like.
The distributed binary is just as free as the original binary.
No its not, the original binary with full source code could be modified if it has the full source code available, the secretly modified distributed version does not.
closed source does NOT limit other people's freedoms - they are, as I pointed out, free to use the same original source to make their own derivative
By the same arguments;
Slavery does NOT limit other peoples freedom - slaves might eventually become free man and become slave owners themselves.
so users have the same freedoms I have. If they don't have the skills, sucks to be them but I don't owe it to them to give them my source
If two people are living in a cage, one knows how to escape the other doest, do they have the same freedoms ?
There is no lack of understanding on my part, only a lack of education on yours given the statements where you used the terms "permit" and "force" are incorrect.
No this is absolutely nothing to do with "slavery". The BSD license does not in any way, shape or form allow me to make you my slave. Undoubtedly you are grossly misinformed on this subject.
Here you contradict yourself, because by distributing a closed-source derivative of some free software is taking away the freedom to create a derivative from your modified version.
Explain how something you never had can be taken away. The MPAA/RIAA make this argument all the time wrt "lost profits" so perhaps you can find citation somewhere in their paraphernalia to support this absurd notion.
By the same arguments;
Slavery does NOT limit other peoples freedom - slaves might eventually become free man and become slave owners themselves.
Well no that argument does not extrapolate to slavery because unlike usage of software, slaves were not free to just not be slaves whenever they choose. Slaves were forced to be slaves, I am not forced to use software I don't like.
If two people are living in a cage, one knows how to escape the other doest, do they have the same freedoms ?
But we are talking about using software, which is entirely optional so both are free to just leave the cage whenever they want. You are just saying you're happy to be in the cage so long as you can modify it but I (like the vast majority of others) just choose to leave the cage if I don't like it.
What part of "the original binary" didn't you understand? Your comparisons to slavery are so over the line that they don't merit consideration (bad troll!)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It is not a troll.
BSD is about maximising individuals freedom at the expense of others, copyleft is about maximising collective freedom. There is an obvious analogy to slavery.
If you cant see it, dont blame me.
BSD is about maximising individuals freedom at the expense of others
Incorrect. If I release a derived binary you are no less free that you were, in fact you are more free than you were because now you can choose to use the derived or the original work. Your assertion fails because it is based on a false dichotomy.
So you would enslave me to free others? Troll, troll, troll.
As I pointed out, the bsd code that a derivative is based on is available to everyone. No reason why someone who wants to release a GPL'd version derived from that same source code. Any other argument is freetarded.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original.
No they are not, they still have all the freedoms that existed in the original.
absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them)
Bullshit! Nothing is being taken away ! When are you fucking copyright shills going to get it through your thick heads that people arent as fucking stupid as you are. Nobody can take from you something that you never had! Stop perpetuating that absurd notion. If you want to use a binary then that's fine, your choice, nobody "has power over you" that's just more shill garbage that you damn well know is false.