Follow

Can someone help me understand?

If is "free labor for corporations", how exactly is it not *also* "free labor for individuals" or small groups of citizens?

@downey Throw in a GPL license and it's free labor for everyone. Everyone benefits by using the GPL.

@Lofenyy @downey #FOSS is free labor for everyone and everybody can use it. This includes companys. But #OpenSource Software is also for the people to set them free. Some tech companies are using the free labor for the people to get them into their proprietary services to restrict the freedom of the people and to profit from this restriction. These companies are using free labor for Open Source and for the people to achieve the opposite.

@datenteiler @downey This is where the GPL comes in. If you modify and redistribute the software, the license must remain, which means the source code must be released to. This is a huge deal when it comes to Android phones. It allows us to actually have a sliver of hope when trying to understand the devices because the drivers are part of the kernel source tree, which is GPL.

@Lofenyy @datenteiler @downey but that freedom doesn't transfer to end users, take android for example, parts of it are GPL but everyday users are trapped in Google's nonfree ecosystem.

@alexesc @Lofenyy @downey Exactly! That's the point. Google, Microsoft etc. are using #OpenSource to lock-in people into their properitary cloud services.

@Lofenyy @downey Freedom is not something the GPL endorses.
Id rather use the MPL if it were for copyleft.

@Lofenyy @downey The GPL is just long - very LONG and just something I wont read, even most contracts I signed were much shorter than that.
It has heavy licensing issues when it comes to code integration with other licenses, see e.g. Linux.

@nifker @downey You don't like it because it's a restrictive license, meaning you can do less with it?

@nifker @downey However, in the software world, where once info is modified, it can be relicensed at will. This means that if a peice of software requires spurce code distribution but allows relicensing, a big company can come along, duplicate the work, extend it with features and antifeatures and publish it without the source code and a new license. This is far from ideal and harms people.

2/3

@Lofenyy @downey At that point I will simply not use their relicensed software.

@nifker @downey The thing is, you likely wouldn't know. A lot of the software that runs on a computer does so without the user knowing. Avoiding relicensed software would require running only free software, which is especially difficult if you own a cell phone.

@nifker @downey This is where copyleft comes in. Copyleft is one small restriction which states that code cannot be relicensed. It must retain the same license it was distributed with. This restriction prevents the previous issue from occouring and modifications to software by any entity can be added or rejected by the community, making it by far the gold standard of software licensing. This benefits everyone in the long run.

3/3

@Lofenyy @downey The thing is the GPL basically requires a VCS, as it wants that the time, the lines and in what way it has been changed.

@nifker @downey I'm not sure I understand how. I use and write GPL software and while I always recommend using a VCS, I've never needed one due to using the GPL. Practical reasons have always come first.

@nifker @downey In that case, I think you might not understand how the restrictions of the GPL carry with it some benefits that cannot be had with purely unrestricted licenses.

The main thing is the copyleft nature. A long time ago, we very quickly discovered that once info was either a public domain dedication or was licenced with an unrestricted license, it could benefit everyone.

1/3

@Lofenyy @downey Copyleft, depends on the project for me, but the GPL is just a no for me.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
FLOSS.social

For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).