Hacker News Reader

Comment by aggieben | Hacker News Reader

To me the great irony is that FSF software isn't really free either - it just has its own restrictions that it prefers to others'. To me, FSF is synonymous with "hypocrite", and seems to have sprung directly from Stallman's own peurile bitterness, and not from anything so noble as what they claim.

Even if you like the FSF stances (and I have no problem with that), I think it's hard to argue that their idea of "free" is really, truly free as Stallman likes to pontificate.

I shit you not. The man is that much of an asshole.

After years of stories about interactions just like the one you described, interviews, and countless mailing-list flame fests, this should be perfectly obvious to anyone.

Let anyone think I'm picking on Stallman because of personality differences, here's another: Theo de Raadt. He is most definitely an asshole - but at least he's consistent, focused, and not judgmental.

View on HN

The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses.

The FSF licenses cause more proprietary code to come into existence (duplication at a great cost to society) when companies cannot integrate GPL products with their proprietary licensed software. So companies write their proprietary version of the component and no one can see the source, or the source of their subcomponents.

> The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses.

The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not.

I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of it as MIT and BSD giving a certain user more freedom, and FSF protecting all user's freedom better.

You're not taking anything away when building open source software into proprietary systems, other users are free to get the original project just like you were. FSF licenses just restrict the way I can release my derivative work.

At best the FSF license can be seen as an understandable restriction on freedom to preserve open source software by requiring reciprocation. To me there is no question that MIT and BSD licenses are more free. FSF style licenses made more sense when open source seemed like it might be a delicate beast at the mercy of proprietary forces, I think its clear now just how robust open source software is.

> You're not taking anything away when building open source software into proprietary systems,

I don't think that's necessarily true. Imagine an open source system that's fairly popular, but with just a few developers. ProprietaryCo hires them all up, and users realize that if they want improved versions of said project, they're going to have to pay, or find some new developers. Far fetched? Not really, it's pretty similar to what Sun Microsystems did.

So, there is some risk to the community. What 'protects' BSD licensed projects best is to have a strong, and diverse development community, which is one of the things that the Apache Software Foundation tries to encourage.

I guess I imagine that style of thing will be a rarity. Its not specifically proprietary software thats creating a problem in that case though, its that a company is stopping development on the open source project by hiring all the programmers away, that could happen with a FSF license as well.

With a GPL license, you could hire up all the developers, but unless you really got all of them, or had a copyright assignment, it would be very difficult to take future versions proprietary.

As to how often that kind of thing happens, it's hard to say. BSD/Sun is a big, obvious case. It would be interesting to get statistics on others.

My general strategy is to use BSD style licensing when my code might be included in someone else's project (Hecl), and GPL if it's a "finished product" kind of thing.

You're not taking anything away when building open source software into proprietary systems

From Stallamn's view, I'm pretty sure you're not taking anything away by restricting the creation of more proprietary software. Proprietary software pretty much doesn't exist for him.

To understand his point, you really have to apply all of the moral frames relating to 'freedom' to software licensing. In that view, to license software without distributing source is akin to licensing software with a clause to give up your first born.

BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code.

This sort of doctrinaire newspeak is what gives GPL advocates the appearance of a cult. Developers who incorporate some open source code in their app and don't release it aren't taking away anyone's freedoms.

Exactly. The way I see it, you can think of a piece of code sort of like chain links. GPL code looks like this: http://ace.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pACE2-988564dt... AND it requires that ever piece 'below' it on the chain also look like that. Open source, BSD-licensed code also looks like that, but allows later links to be closed as well.

The upside to GPL is that any link N has the same rights to use and modify N-1 as 2 had on 1, with the downside being that N has limited rights on itself. BSD grants maximum control to each link, with the downside being that any given link may choose not to allow any links to be added below it.

This sort of doctrinaire newspeak is what gives GPL advocates the appearance of a cult.

Let's not throw around names... it's not out of comprehension to think of knowing what your computer is running as a fundamental right.

Developers who incorporate some open source code in their app and don't release it aren't taking away anyone's freedoms.

That's precisely it. I'm not asking you to agree with the FSF view, but to understand it. In the view of the GPL, distributing proprietary software is absolutely taking away people's rights of knowing what's running on their machine, modifying what they're running, etc.

Fundamental rights aren't always obvious, and whether or not this view will catch on is not something I pretend to know. I think this will be an open question for dozens, if not hundreds of years to come.

Free Ipod! Terms and conditions apply

I agree about the different purposes, but I'd also point out that usually the more "terms and conditions" the less likely what you're getting is really free. To remove vagueness regarding freedom, Webster's definition:

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d: ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use

So what's your definition of "free"?

I believe FSF code, as in GPL is free. There are four freedoms that come with it. The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. You're also free not to use it.

I find it interesting that so many criticize RMS for his character and style. I find myself very tolerant of people who are very talented programmers. I think RMS is a pretty decent programmer. Emacs, GCC, ... have added a lot of value over the years.

The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms.

Ah, good. Progress. We agree that what FSF calls "free", and what RMS so piously lectures us all about, has at least one substantive restriction. My definition of "free" (as in speech, as the Righteous and Holy FSF puts it) includes no substantive restrictions.

I think the Stallman's definition of "free" basically amounts to extortion on some level. I also refer back to my point about puerile bitterness.

As a side note, when you feel the need to enumerate the freedoms, then the implication is that there are lots of non-freedoms.

I don't see it as extortion, I like of think of it as share and share alike. Someone elsewhere commented that GPL advocates want to be paid back in code rather than money. There's some truth to that view. I like the analogy to the "tragedy of the commons". Everyone wants to graze their cows there for free, but then sell their milk for profits.

Programs are a form of mathematics. Freely (as in freedom) disseminating them is a good thing, it fosters creativity and synergy.

Enumerations are also a good thing, they help us remember and clarify contracts. The bill of rights is a good example. You have freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, to be secure in your letters, etc.. Notice that implicit in some of these is that you cannot deny others these rights.

I've noticed many are content to dismiss RMS because of his character. I've felt that way some in the past also but I would urge you to read some of his essays and even more so the works of Lessig, Moglen, and others in this area.

"You have freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, to be secure in your letters, etc.. Notice that implicit in some of these is that you cannot deny others these rights."

Finally a voice of reason.

The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms.

The GPL is more restrictive than that. If one puts code online and says "do whatever you want with it," everyone has the same freedom to use it. No one can deny anyone else the freedom to use it, short of blocking access to the server.

I think he meant to say "one can't deny others the same freedoms on derivative works".

That's a big difference, considering the difference between lawyers' definitions of "derivative" and everyday usage.

What I meant is that one can't deny others those same 4 freedoms, which include modifying and distributing the changes.

I like to think that what folks refer to as its' "viral" nature is really the preservation of freedom. It strikes me that this license more than any other protects the rights of programmers and enables them to earn a living. This might seem counterintuitive, and it certainly is counter to the propaganda that often spread about communism and programmers earning a living, but much of that stems from the way corporations are structured as legal entities.

I think of it like this: GNU's "free" is really "the freedom of software." That is, it's not what's better for the users/property owners (think fascism) but what's better for the software itself, as an entity (think democracy.) Your right to freely use the software stops where the software's own right to not be "jailed" begins.

To put it another way, the GPL is definitively the license that will apply to AI entities in the future, who, I suspect, will be their own copyright owners. ;)

the GPL is definitively the license that will apply to AI entities in the future

Sounds like the plot from http://www.accelerando.org/_static/accelerando.html

Software has freedom? That's deep...

To me, FSF is synonymous with "hypocrite"...

The FSF licenses aren't about giving individuals more freedom, but about ensuring more freedom for everyone. Think of each time someone accepts a license as an edge in a graph - with his licenses, Stallman doesn't want to just add more edges to the graph, he wants to change the shape of the graph all together.

Yes. That's called Marxism. It starts off with assurances that it's really in everyone's best interest, but ends up as totalitarianism in practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com