Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Changing CentOS in mid-stream
Posted Dec 16, 2020 17:13 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: Changing CentOS in mid-stream by Wol
Parent article: Changing CentOS in mid-stream
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,
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