stupid breeds stupid [LWN.net]

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 23, 2025 17:01 UTC (Sun) by jzb (editor, #7867)
In reply to: stupid breeds stupid by Wol
Parent article: OSI election ends with unsatisfying results

Free Software is "People *must give away* because it's in *my* interest for them to do so".

I don't think this is a charitable summary of the Free Software ethos. If I was going to try to boil it down to a one-liner, I'd summarize it something like this: the Free Software movement holds the belief that it's unethical to deny people the right to run, study, and modify the software that is distributed to them or to deny them the ability to distribute the changes. It is not only about self-interest, IMO.

That probably comes across to many people as extreme because they don't even have an ethical framework that encompasses software at all. Especially those folks who don't have the ability to modify the software—why do I care if I have these rights if I cannot (practically) exercise them?

to post comments

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 23, 2025 20:38 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (6 responses)

> That probably comes across to many people as extreme because they don't even have an ethical framework that encompasses software at all.

Unfortunately, to my mind, this *is* extreme and is where idealism and reality meet in a train wreck. Okay, there's no such thing as an absolute ethical framework, but I would have thought mine - which basically thinks copyright for literary works (including programs) is fine to enable the author(s) to earn an income - is pretty much the norm. This attitude completely destroys peoples' ability to write software as a product for sale.

Applied to books, it would destroy authors' abilities to earn a living as a writer. The same with musicians and composing. (Look at the famous classical (1700s, 1800s) composers. They were all employees or performers first, composers very much second.)

I don't think it's ethical to treat software as special ... that said, software is treated specialy because you can read books (because they come as source), you can read music (because the source is almost always freely available), you mostly can't read source code because it isn't available :-( (Hence me wanting source to be available as a matter of course as a minimum... even if locked up by copyright).

Hence me being very much an Open Source guy - share because it's in your own best interest (and if I use your source, there is an ethical obligation to pay back/forward as appropriate). But I can't agree with dskoll that forced sharing benefits everyone - all those software house employees are going to lose their jobs ...

Free and Open Source software is great for those people for whom software isn't the product. Maybe we should go back to the 1700s and earlier - when musicians were performers and teachers and just happened to write their own music. Shakespeare wasn't a playwright - he was an impressario who wrote his own plays. There wasn't really any such thing as a novelist - they were were presumably journalists and columnists. Dunno how it would play out for software - maybe it would be better (or maybe not). It would certainly be very different.

But personally, I don't think Free Software is ethically justifiable unless we get rid of copyright completely. Don't take that the wrong way - I do think it's morally superior!

> That probably comes across to many people as extreme because they don't even have an ethical framework that encompasses software at all. Especially those folks who don't have the ability to modify the software—why do I care if I have these rights if I cannot (practically) exercise them?

You're nicking my hobby horse :-) And coming to the complete opposite conclusion to me. Folk who can't write their own software won't have software written for them, because it doesn't scratch any programmer itches. And as private individuals they can't afford to pay for it. Even as businesses, they probably can't afford to pay for it if their competitors can just copy it. So again, Free Software is not in everybody's best interests there, either.

The reason I said "Free Software is you must share because it's in my interest" is because in practice "my" really means "us programmers" - at the end of the day isn't it extremely arrogant for us to assume what benefits us must benefit others as well? I absolutely hate it when I'm the victim of that attitude.

Cheers,
Wol

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 23, 2025 20:51 UTC (Sun) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (5 responses)

Wol writes: But I can't agree with dskoll that forced sharing benefits everyone

Well, hang on. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the GPL for their code. The FSF says they should, but they have no real power over software authors. What is true is that if an author picks the GPL, then downstream recipients are forced to share their changes if they distribute modified versions of the software, and that IMO is a good thing that does benefit everyone.

If you want to make money writing software, pick a standard proprietary license. There's no shame in that, and it's a much easier way to build a business than with free software or open-source. But if you do decide to make software open-source, then I think a copyleft license is best. Open-source (or Free Software) is a philosophy. It's not a business model.

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 23, 2025 23:03 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

This is where imho the "pick any two" dilemma rears its head.

> then downstream recipients are forced to share their changes if they distribute modified versions of the software, and that IMO is a good thing that does benefit everyone.

> If you want to make money writing software, pick a standard proprietary license.

I don't think those two statements are mutually compatible :-) Well, they are with copyleft licences like MPL, but that's a "weak" licence and not liked by the purists.

If I want to make a living from software, using the GPL makes life, well, tricky. How can that be "a good thing that does benefit everyone"? Either I have to re-invent the wheel (a bad thing), or I have major administrative hassle proving I comply with the licence (a bad thing), or I have to think of all sorts of "inventive" ways round the GPL - yet another bad thing!

That's alleviated to some extent by the LGPL, which is a big show of practicality by FSF, but it comes over as an unwanted concession to necessity, rather than the right solution to certain problems.

But we're drifting way off what provoked this thread - a conspiracy theory against Open Source. We both want the same end - for the source to be open. We both agree that if someone makes us a gift, it behoves us to return it. It's just we may not agree about the best way to achieve that end. That's life!

Cheers,
Wol

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 23, 2025 23:44 UTC (Sun) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

The statements are not mutually compatible. The reason for creating GPL'd software is not financial. It is to benefit humanity. If you want to make a living from software, don't use GPL'd software (unless you're willing to jump through the hoops.) If you want to produce GPL'd software, then it's fine for you to use GPL'd software.

The intent behind the GPL was never to empower businesses to make a profit off GPL'd software. The fact that a few have figured out a way to do that is not relevant to the intent of the GPL, which is to empower users to control their own computing environment.

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 25, 2025 0:13 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (1 responses)

The difference between "should" and "must" is an army and a navy, not any ethical or normative considerations. If "must" does not correctly capture the intended normative meaning, then neither does "should."

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 25, 2025 0:15 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

(Yes, I have read RFC 2119. Those are technical definitions for use in standards. I'm speaking of the standard definitions as you would find them in the dictionary.)

stupid breeds stupid

Posted Mar 31, 2025 18:19 UTC (Mon) by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628) [Link]

"If you want to make money writing software, pick a standard proprietary license. There's no shame in that, and it's a much easier way to build a business than with free software or open-source. But if you do decide to make software open-source, then I think a copyleft license is best. Open-source (or Free Software) is a philosophy. It's not a business model."

I think many companies do think it is a business model. They are looking to get free labor from the community. History points to many anecdotes of community made software or efforts co-opted by a company. Usually ends badly though. Copyleft is the one way to not have your work co-opted by an entity looking to leverage free expertise and labor. It does put a damper on making money off your own work. Hopefully, though with efforts like flathub we can have both.