The Free Software Foundation must establish a sovereign state dedicated to the defense and promotion of software freedom.
That's going to be tough. I guess Stallman will object to driving a proprietary tank.
>>2
All state documents and blueprints of weapons systems will be released under open source licenses.
>>3
Not only that but also the currency has to be released under a free (not as in beer!) license. Everyone needs to be able to replicate and modify it as he/she/it sees fit. Anything short of that is pure proprietary facism.
Why would an utopia have a state? Be a bit more ambitious.
>>1,2 the "four freedoms" only apply to what you've received, no?
>>4 a cryptocurrency?
(doesn't even care much at all about this sort of thing)
You'd make a damn good politician.
>>7
Thanks... I think.
No not really. The status quo of free software in society today is practical enough for me and my computing. I don't need a sovereign state where the big focus is software freedom.
>>9
Bill?
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
Software Freedom Conservancy announced today it has filed a lawsuit against Vizio Inc. for what it calls repeated failures to fulfill even the basic requirements of the General Public License (GPL).
>>11
The open source movement is finally baring its teeth to launch an unprecedented attack against technology businesses. Citizens and businesses should unite to shame, shun, and discredit those who associate themselves with these anarchistic anti-business movements. The result of the lawsuit would hopefully neuter the menacing threat of the GPL, and make the FSF know its place.
>>12
I have the nagging feeling that your trolling but in case you aren't which menacing threat are you talking about? Using GPL'd code in any kind any kind of central position or not adequately separated is practical suicide. No shit? Now that's news.
There is a reason smart people use non-GPL code over GPL code whereever possible (even doing so has repercussions) and treat any GPL code for which no alternative exists (or can be reasonably invented) like toxic waste...
>>13
GPL is a menacing threat because the FSF's propaganda apparatus is still effective at brainwashing programmers into releasing their code under the restrictive terms of the GPL. GPL reduces overall open source programmer productivity because duplication of effort is needed to publish clean room equivalents of GPL software under less restrictive licenses.
>>14
Valid points.
The GPL helps you fight the corporate lawyers when they want to prevent you from releasing code, especially side projects.
My company owns all the work I do on my side projects but if they want to do anything with it they have to publish the source thanks to the GPL (I made sure someone else worked on it before coming here.)
>>16
So basically you tricked them?
anarchistic anti-business movements
You make them sound better than they actually are.
>>12
That's never going to happen. GPL has been a thing since the 1980's and that's never happened. This means you are just a troll who is trolling for the lols.
I made sure someone else worked on it before coming here.
What is the significance of having someone else working on your code before you joined your current company?
>>20
The guy >>16 is writing code in his spare time and his employer owns the copyright to the code. So when he writes and publishes the GPL'd code, his employer is legally able to republish the code under any other license (as the copyright holder). By having someone else that is (probably) unrelated to >>16 and his employer, that someone else holds copyright to his own part of the project. This means that >>16's employer cannot trivially decide to republish the whole project under some other license. Now the code owned by >>16's employer is probably meaningless outside of the specific context of the GPL'd project. What this means is that should >>16's employer decide to republish the project under a different license, they would have to invest more resources to rework the project that they would control the whole project. It is a mere inconvenience that they don't control the whole project and they also want to republish the project under a different license. It is significantly easier for the employer to let it be: >>16 will continue to publish code to the GPL'd project and his employer won't try to republish the project under a different license.
>>21
Exactly. The GPL combined with collaboration protects your projects from hostile takeovers by employers.
How this would be 'hostile' when the employer actually owns the copyright? To me it seems like the code in question was produced on a 'for hire' basis and this GPL + 1 external contributer construct was used to trick the (probably naive - "GPL you say? Sounds progressive. Guess it's fine for us.") employer into effectively surrendering control over a project they paid for
They paid for
Last I checked I was only getting paid for an 8 hour window during business days. I'd be happy to expand that to 24 though.
So it wasn't developed during work hours? Why would they own the copyright to it then?
>>25
This is just a common part of employment contracts or local law.
yes
>>26
"common part of employment contracts"??? Where is it common to sign over copyright for products outside of work environment (and who signs such contracts???)? This seems viciously broad even in relation to US copyright tradition.
If such a contract was even possible where i am they'd have to pay me 18h/day with 10 of them where i am free to do as i please and if i "happen" to not code in my "free" time, well, tough luck for them. Besides it would obviously cost premium rate. I might actually have to code something for personal use where i'd rather not give up copyright and i want to see a nice bottom line for that gamble...
>>28
Coming to a locale near you, get it wherever your time is sold! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21823413
>>11
That appears to be a case of a productive technology company being denied the use of common technologies and being bullied by the FSF, with the goal of advancing the FSF's anti-business political agenda. The FSF is a copyright troll that should be shut down.
>>30
I honestly wouldn't be too upset with a copy-left anti-buisness license. aka. pay me if you want to make money on my work.
>>31
Your mistake is in the confusion that the FSF and the GPL opposes businesses and profits. This is false.
>>32
The FSF is fundamentally an anti-business and anti-capitalist organization. For now, the FSF uses its propaganda apparatus to portray itself as vaguely pro-business, in order to secure the political support that it needs. The FSF will only reveal its true colors when it has achieved its ultimate aim of locking up all software under GPL restrictions. By then, it will be too late to fight back against the FSF and its army of lawyers. The FSF's copyright trolling against this television company gives us a glimpse of a dystopian FSF-dominated future.
>>33
No that's completely wrong.
>>34
How so?
The FSF wants to lock up all software under GPL restrictions. It greedily obtains the intellectual property of programmers by asking for "copyright assignment". It wants to hold all copyrights to all software. It wants to become an intellectual property powerhouse, which would allow it to become a copyright troll to extort innocent citizens and businesses. It wants to do all this under the guise of "protecting freedom".
>>30
I wrote >>31 aware that the FSF (and by extension GPL) aren't opposed to business. What I was suggesting was something closer to https://commonsclause.com/ and related licenses which are technically not free-software. Amusingly the FSF is actually the only entity I can think of which would be opposed to a "fuck you pay me" licenses of this sort.
>>33,35
lol.
The GPL says nothing about profits or selling things to make money, it only says that you must share the source with the binaries. There are many companies that build businesses around this.
>>35
No that's completely wrong.
>>35
That narrative is a complete strawman of the FSF. That's why you're completely wrong.
>>39
Time to license more software under anti-GPL licenses to stop the spread of the General Public Virus.
Which interestingly seems to be not as easy as it seems. I remember some discussions on how to waterproof incompatibility with the GPL (for a BSD license) and while it initially seemed just having advertising clause would be enough it later turned out even that wouldn't be a 100% guaranty. I don't think a final solution was reached either. Lacking a better option i'd probably still recommend a BSD license including the advertising clause (and have used it myself in the past) but any better recommendation would be very welcome. I write mostly BSD code and i don't want it to become GPL'd just because some clown added 3 lines or linked it to some other project...
As for the GPL being "business-friendly" well... There is not much business left in the code itself once it's GPL'd. You can run a service based on that code and sell access to it (while hoping nobody else sets up an instance and undercuts you...), you can offer support for said code (again hoping there won't be anyone to undercut you) or you can find some other way to basically cheat the GPL and monopolize your product but the code itself (and any change made to it) becomes basically worthless at the point a GPL license is slapped on it.
>>41
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6234/is-there-a-generally-accepted-anti-copyleft-clause-or-license
>>43
The Cuck License
>>44
Depends on viewpoint. I like being able to use my own code and derivative works based on it. That's no longer the case once it comes into contact with anything GPL. I sure as hell wont be advocating the use of a MS license but if their approach proves practical i might as well borrow it.
>>42
The business in GPL is in selling programmer time. I raised my first fortune selling my time as a software engineer selling software solutions that are licensed under GPLv3.
>>46
Sure but anyone can do that. I am assuming you were the one writing said software but if that's the case it's merely by chance and not by requirement.
>>47
Did I sell my time as a programmer by mere chance? By that standard, all businesses work by mere chance and not due to the competence of the workers.
>>48
You tell me. If it's GPL it's impossible to know if the software you "sold" was actually written by you or some random guy on the other side of the planet.
>>49
I'm selling my time as a programmer to interpret the business requirements and write conforming software, I'm not selling the software as its own distinct product. I am happy to integrate any kinds of free software into my work, I will license the code that I write under the GPLv3.
>>50
Surprise, surprise. GPL'd software isn't a great object for selling. Who'd have guessed that... As for "I will license the code that I write under the GPLv3": As long as you find a naive employer that lets you do that more power to you. Like this they gain fuck all from your work but the possibility to use something that every other person on this planet can use too. Seems like a really clever way to gain ones business an edge over the competition. Not.
>>51
You're not paying for the binary, you're paying for the maintenance. If you sell that directly the GPL is helpful and not harmful.
Leave your parent's basement and do some stuff before you criticize the way the world works.
>>51
I make big cash selling my GPL software. I've never had a problem selling GPL software for the thousands that I normally ask.
>>52
That appears to be how the WordPress plugin ecosystem generates revenues.
>>52
Obviously. How i have to leave my parents basement because i point out your clients are naive is beyond me though. You licensing under the GPL yields them exactly this: Nothing. It benefits a ton of people who didn't pay a single dime but not them. Besides you basically agree with me. You sell support not software.
>>53
Who doesn't? People have been selling GPL'd software to dumbasses for ages even without the glorified support. Jeez i've seen "successful businessmen" that couldn't find the on/off switch of their highend laptops peddle stuff that was basically crappified versions of GPL'd software (which shall remain unnamed to protect the entirely guilty) to chainstores. These guys absolutely loved the free money given all they did was have someone design some boxes, find/replace all names and break some parts in the process.
To bad for the original creators but they are just programmers wasting their life away punching keys and not "successful businessmen" after all. Ironically it's likely they were the ones who ended up being swamped with support requests for the broken shit. Either because noone cared enough to really remove all references or people somehow figured out what they were using after realizing "the authors" didn't give a shit about them or their complaints/support requests.
Anyone know a copy-left license for non-commercial use? Common clause seems a little soft to me.
>>56
Shouldn't be to hard to make one. You just need a somewhat sensible definition of "commercial use" which you add to the license of your choice together with a clause disallowing it.
>>56
CC-BY-NC-SA?
>>57
The law is fickle and manifold, especially in America, I wouldn't trust myself to do this correctly.
>>58
I'm mostly bothered by the lack of patent grant (for non-commercial purposes) here as they say: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software
Software as a service is the way to go.