Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Posted Dec 15, 2020 23:31 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)In reply to: Changing CentOS in mid-stream by paulj
Parent article: Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Which is COMPLETELY AGAINST the spirit of the GPL.
The whole point of the GPL is to protect *users* against an *abusive upstream*. You are said upstream. The GPL is there to protect your users *against you*. Sorry.
Cheers,
Wol
Posted Dec 16, 2020 0:05 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (18 responses)
The GPL does not exist to allow parasitic corporations to exploit Free Software developers, taking their code and making money of it with effectively-proprietary modifications to their customers, restricting the distribution of those modifications through side-contracts.
If you think those corporations need protecting, we're just going to have fundamentally disagree. And I think you're no friend of Free Software.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 0:26 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (17 responses)
You clearly don't understand what the Free Software Foundation thinks is "Free Software", nor what is the intent of the GPL.
The GPL has NEVER been a "friend of the software developer" - if that's what you want you need the BSD licence.
I repeat - that corporation is your *downstream* *user*. The GPL is there to protect *downstream*!
Cheers,
Posted Dec 16, 2020 10:32 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (16 responses)
I really do not care about the interests of such parasites, and I'd like to find a copyleft licence that discourages such parasites, to the benefit of the rest of the community.
And I don't see a problem with a copyleft licence protecting the interests of Free Software developers, as long as it still protects the freedom of users.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 11:57 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (13 responses)
As Wol pointed out, "parasitic corporations" are still "users", so what you are saying is that "I want some uses/users to have more rights/freedoms than others".
Posted Dec 16, 2020 12:16 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (12 responses)
The GPL already excludes users who want to keep modifications they distribute to others proprietary. The problem is that some corporates have found a way to /effectively/ keep their modifications proprietary, while (arguably) staying technically within the law - by placing their restrictions on /other/ users in side-contracts.
These users are already outside of the spirit of the GPL, as far as I'm concerned. They are taking freedoms away from others. I have no time or sympathy for them. I will be glad to see that loophole closed off in future copyleft licences.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 12:24 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (9 responses)
If you're a Free Software developer that things there should be /no/ restriction on freedoms for users, then go and use a BSD licence. You (and your users) won't get the benefits that copyleft can bring. And that's a subjective decision, and that's fine.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 16:41 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (8 responses)
You quite clearly have never bothered to read the GPL properly. The pre-amble states that yes, it does place obligations ON THE DEVELOPERS. The following is taken from clause 0 of the GPLv2
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
While this does not explicitly cover the case of some one/thing who is both a downstream and an upstream, I think it is quite clear that the intent of this section (and of the rest of the licence) is to re-iterate the fact that downstream owes NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to upstream. This is the - intentional - reversal of the normal state of affairs where downstream needs permission from upstream to do anything even as little as wiping its nose despite paying through its nose for the privilege...
That's why I said "if you want freedom FOR THE DEVELOPERS you need the BSD licence". The GPL frees your users from any obligation to you. If you don't like it, tough, that's what it is intended to achieve.
Cheers,
Posted Dec 16, 2020 17:13 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (7 responses)
The intent of the GPL is to ensure the downstream has all the rights its upstream received. That is, the downstream /must/ be free to be able to distribute the changes onward. And that includes back to the original source!
I.e. the original upstream can *also* be a further-downstream - the benefits of Free Software are intended to extend to the original developer, as much as to any other users. It's a two-way street (but the parasites want to skew that street to themselves). So you are just wrong that the upstream-and-downstream has no obligation to its upstream, for the whole idea of copyleft is that a downstream of that upstream-and-downstream ought to be able to supply the changes back to the original upstream, and hence make the original upstream a downstream of the upstream-and-downstream as well as an upstream.
Copyleft intended to guarantee that freedom for the "downstream", by imposing obligations on the "upstream-and-downstream" intermediary - which reduce the freedom of that "upstream-and-downstream" inter-mediary.
That some think they have a found a way to prevent their downstreams from exercising the rights that the original upstream - the copyright holder - wanted all downstreams to be able to exercise, is a problem that I would like to see fixed.
The BSD isn't useful here to the original upstream. The BSD licence has its uses, but this scenario isn't one of them.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 17:30 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (5 responses)
"ought to be able" is not the same as "must"
> That some think they have a found a way to prevent their downstreams from exercising the rights that the original upstream - the copyright holder - wanted all downstreams to be able to exercise, is a problem that I would like to see fixed.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I just don't think this addressable/fixable from within the scope of a copyright license.
Ultimately this is a question of freedom of association -- "Sure, you're completely free to pass on these modified GPL sources; that's your right. But if you do that, I'll exercise my right to stop doing business with you."
Posted Dec 16, 2020 17:41 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (4 responses)
They should just not be able to use it to prevent others from exercising their copyleft rights to distribute. And that can be done easily by just making it a general requirement (with reasonable exceptions to address ability to do R&D in private, desert island residents and dissidents) to make source available, so that it ceases to be a tool to control others with.
In this day of a plethora of places that will host Free Software source for free, it's easy to make code available, and it's reasonable to generally require those who modify Free Software to do so.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 17:54 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
Private contracts are used to place far more onerous conditions on things far more basic and important than copyleft software; what makes software so special here?
For example, as part of my severance package from the last gig, there was an anti-disparagement clause. If I trashed-talked my former employer within a certain period of time, I'd have to return the money they paid me. I was free to say no, and trash my employer all I wanted, but instead I voluntarily entered into a contract that restricted my freedom of speech and used that money to pay off some debts.
Should this "Waiving my rights to X in exchange for certain considerations" sort of contract be made illegal? (if yes, why? If no, how X == free speech materially different from "X == redistribution of copyleft software"?)
Posted Dec 17, 2020 12:26 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
The copyright holder can't stop others exercising their freedom of association either.
The copyright holder can however require that the obligation to distribute modifications to the source be broader, such that others can not wield freedom of association as a weapon to restrict copyleft rights.
And if such parasitic companies don't like that, they're still perfectly free to not use that software. The authors are free to choose their licence for their software, and others are free to make their own decisions.
Posted Dec 17, 2020 13:20 UTC (Thu)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Oh, yes it does; if I make use of or incorporate certain software in my last two jobs, I can be terminated on the spot.
> The copyright holder can't stop others exercising their freedom of association either.
Their attempts to create "ethical licenses" certainly do; under "field of use restrictions"
> The copyright holder can however require that the obligation to distribute modifications to the source be broader, such that others can not wield freedom of association as a weapon to restrict copyleft rights.
The actual "software" has no rights or permissions -- only "persons" do. I (or my employer), as a "person", have the permission granted by the software's author (ie the license) to redistribute that copyleft software. I can chose not to do so for any reason -- Because I don't like you. Because it's Tuesday. Because I promised my mother that I wouldn't. Because I signed a contract with my employer/supplier/whatever to not do so. And so forth.
What you are asking is for the license to unconditionally force/compel folks to redistribute the software to unrelated third parties. There are significant practical and legal problems with that. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's going to take a lot of care to draft, and the resulting license will probably see even less use than the AGPL -- Which is already considered so toxic that it's only significant use is as a deliberate poison pill.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 20:24 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
And you are showing your inability to follow a logical argument. If I rely on that company's software (never mind that some of it is your GPL software), I cannot afford for *them* to follow *their* right to freedom of association, and refuse to associate with me.
I have entered into a - supposedly mutual - beneficial arrangement with them, and neither of us wishes to jeopardise it. You are an outsider to that agreements, and by agreeing to the GPL you surrendered any rights you may have had. If you don't like it, it's your right to refuse to associate with the GPL.
It is a fundamental requirement of the free market, that people are not coerced into doing business with people they would rather avoid. This is what's wrong with modern "free market" capitalism, where the big players are free to buy, force out of business, or otherwise destroy their smaller competitors and force customers to do business with them. In this particular case, unfortunately that company does not want to do business with you, and their customers do not want to antagonise them.
YOU SAID the GPL requires you to pass on all the rights you received. But you are objecting to this company exercising those self-same rights that you received and passed on.
Cheers,
Posted Dec 16, 2020 19:21 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
And that includes the freedom NOT to distribute changes back to the original source.
You're arguing with your heart, not your head. And that way leads to disaster ... "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You've already assumed (from no evidence whatsoever) that I am opposed to what you want. I'm not. Just like many other people here, my head tells me you can't have it. Doesn't mean I don't wish we could :-)
"Man proposes. Nature opposes". What you want is not achievable. Not without tying logic up in a granny knot and bashing it over the head with a rolling pin.
Cheers,
Posted Dec 16, 2020 16:27 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
So you want to discriminate between users - which is FORBIDDEN by the *concept* of copyleft. You won't - can't - find a copyleft licence that agrees with you. (Oh - and as I pointed out - the GPLv3 not only did not attempt to close that loophole, it quite deliberately opened it even wider!)
And those same users you have no sympathy for includes a LOT of hardware vendors - if you hadn't noticed, a lot of kernel developers feel similarly to you. The *problem* is that, as soon as you have the sort of licence *you* desire, the practical consequence will be that linux is sidelined and becomes completely irrelevant.
Sadly, sometimes practicality has to trump idealism, or the idealists will become irrelevant sighing winds in the desert :-(
Cheers,
Posted Dec 16, 2020 16:53 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Some users think they've found a loophole, that is against the spirit of the GPL and copyleft. (And I completely disagree with you that the spirit of copyleft /intentionally/ allows for corporates to restrict re-distribution of modifications by their downstreams - that's absurd, the entire point of copyleft is to ensure the recipients get the right to distribute!).
I don't get your point about hardware vendors. If you mean the likes of graphics vendors with closed blobs, they may well be in direct violation of the GPL already - that's not the case I'm talking about.
I sense I'm down a rabbit hole with you.
Posted Dec 16, 2020 13:04 UTC (Wed)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 16, 2020 13:23 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
So I'd be happy to exempt natural persons from some obligations designed to tackle an issue that manifests itself mostly with corporations. If a reasonable balance of obligations and wording can be found that doesn't need to distinguish between natural persons and other bodies, that's fine too.
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Wol
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Wol
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Wol
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Wol
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Wol
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream