Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Posted Jul 4, 2021 20:58 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights by Wol
Parent article: Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> At the end of the day, do you want to punish and drive away companies who've been sold an illegal product, or do you want them to become legal and good contributors.
You've got your answer, you just don't want to accept it:
> The big example is OpenWRT or whatever it's called, and of course ObjectiveC, but they're about the only big ones.If companies are becoming “legal and good contributors”, but don't bring anything good to the table then what's the point of having them as friends?
Decades ago, when free software was novelty and companies often violated copyright out of the ignorance (and when G++ was donated to FSF after similar tuffle, you are seemingly forgot about it) situation was different. But these times are long in the past.
Today companies start with knowledge about how copyleft work and they just willingly ignore it. They put their valuable code into separate modules to make sure that even if they would be forced to do what GPL demands — community would get nothing. And that's exactly what happens.
What's the point of pulling the punches in an environment like that?
> that German guy you referenced basically turned linux into a toxic dump with his antics.Yet somehow Linux is still used by more companies that any other kernel. I think, again, that you know the answer, just refuse to accept it:
> And how much NEW code have we received, from companies in compliance? We'll never know.We will never know and we shouldn't even care. Companies which are developing stuff without playing shady games with sources wouldn't be target of lawsuits, obviously, and, as you have pointed out, companies which are brought to compliance kicking and screaming don't contribute anything valuable.
Posted Jul 4, 2021 22:18 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (7 responses)
To quote Matthew Garrett some five years ago: [1]
"[contributions are] what you care about. That's not what your users care about. They care about code *availability*, not contribution. They don't care whether their vendor participates upstream. They just care about being able to fix their shitty broken piece of hardware when the vendor won't ship updates. "
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discu...
Posted Jul 4, 2021 23:01 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (6 responses)
Do they get this? From what I'm observing usually even if source is extracted from lazy vendor there are not enough developers to fix anything. And if something is actually developed and is useful then it's not because FSF kicked sources for yet another shitty webcam's firmware, but because someone managed to get sources for the Linux kernel or, quite often, just reverse-engineered binaries. And Linux is, ironically, project which is adamantly against copyright assignments and all other things Kuhn proposes.
Posted Jul 4, 2021 23:41 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (5 responses)
With the source code, there is at least a _possibility_ of a "developer" being able to fix something. And for someone actually becoming a "developer" to begin with. Without source code availability, that is frankly never going to happen.
> And if something is actually developed and is useful then it's not because FSF kicked sources for yet another shitty webcam's firmware, but because someone managed to get sources for the Linux kernel or, quite often, just reverse-engineered binaries.
It's useful for folks that actually own those shitty webcams. Isn't empowering users the entire point of this "free software" thing?
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:14 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (4 responses)
Sure. That's interesting theory but how well does it work in practice? It's not 1985th, GPL and it's enforcement happen for more than quarter-century. Again: interesting theory which is thoroughly refuted in practice. Look on popular games and bazillion addons/patches/hacks made by enthusiasts. Most of them don't ever see the source code for the games they are fixing. And while many fixes are trivial (like endless ammunition or the ability to pass through walls) some are quite elaborate (include whole new chapters in some games and new effects and many other such things). Source code, by itself, is not worth much if there are noone who may want to tinker it. Sure. “Free software”, that almost dead movement, is all about “empowering users”. “Open source” software is all about getting contributions back — and if some users get “empowered” as a result then it's nice side benefit. RMS wrote large essay on subject… and it's as correct today as it was when he wrote it. With one caveat: when RMS wrote that essay significant percentage of GNU software developers were actually attracted to “free software” and the idea of “empowering users”. Today… they are tiny minority. Most developers (me including) are very firmly in the “open source” camp. I don't really care about getting some source dumps which noone wants or needs. It I can get something to improve my code… that is something which I value, sure. “Free software” guys are not my enemies and if their efforts don't make my life worse then I can, probably, help. But if all these copyright assignments and enforcement wouldn't help me, then I'm not sure why I should bother. That's the stance of majority of developers out there. If FSF can not accept that and can not adapt to that situation then it would just slowly but surely become irrelevant. Developers would move on and it would just remain a footnote on the Wikipedia.
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:16 UTC (Mon)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Posted Jul 5, 2021 0:29 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
If you don't care, then respectfuly, STFU and don't belittle the efforts of those who do care.
> I don't really care about getting some source dumps which noone wants or needs. It I can get something to improve my code… that is something which I value, sure.
Just because *you* do not care does not mean that folks using the derivatives of your code don't.
Posted Jul 5, 2021 15:03 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
> If you don't care, then respectfuly, STFU and don't belittle the efforts of those who do care.
Agreed.
> > I don't really care about getting some source dumps which noone wants or needs. It I can get something to improve my code… that is something which I value, sure.
> Just because *you* do not care does not mean that folks using the derivatives of your code don't.
And again, agreed.
Times have moved on. Back then there was little difference between developers and users. RMS's printer story is an excellent example - he was both. Nowadays, the problem with the Free Software crowd is they don't seem to have realised that developers and users are two almost separate sets. That difference should be RESPECTED, not, as here, where developers seem to be abusing users for not understanding the freedom they are being given.
It's like that American quote I hate about sacrificing freedom for security. Freedom has a cost, and that cost isn't always worth paying. For *today's users*, the cost of code freedom often isn't worth paying, and that needs to be respected.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 6, 2021 14:25 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
The entire point of the Free Software crowd's "complete corresponding source code" principle is to ensure "users" don't have to rely on specific "developers" -- with the source code, users can become developers themselves, or choose different developers instead. Without the source code (and the legal right to utilize it)Developers are users too... you'll forever be dependent on that original developer.
Sure, most users might as well be on a different planet when it comes to being able to do something with the source code, but.. so what? The same could be said about pretty much any other specialization in society. Should we also dismiss the plights of farmers because we get our food from supermarkets?
Meanwhile, the only disrespect evident in this discussion has been one set of developers abusing another set of developers for being idealistic, non-pragmatic, and/or naive for believing in "user freedom" because it doesn't result in short-term gains for the original developer (and/or their codebase)
> It's like that American quote I hate about sacrificing freedom for security. Freedom has a cost, and that cost isn't always worth paying. For *today's users*, the cost of code freedom often isn't worth paying, and that needs to be respected.
In this analogy, who is (not) paying what cost, for whose freedom?
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> "[contributions are] what you care about. That's not what your users care about…They just care about being able to fix their shitty broken piece of hardware when the vendor won't ship updates.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
> With the source code, there is at least a _possibility_ of a "developer" being able to fix something.
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights
Wol
Kuhn: It Matters Who Owns Your Copylefted Copyrights