@rysiek I understand your concerns.
But what you call details are basically every dimension that describes these phenomena except for the legal one!
Do you really think they are doing so as a philanthropic endeavour?
They are pushing their own agenda and their own culture and ethics to users and devs, nerd-washed through this ambiguity!
They are fooling us!
@Shamar I do not consider Microzon Facegoopple to be a part of the Open Source movement. The Open Source movement is being co-opted by them. The Open Source movement can consider if they're okay with it and take action.
Still, the main front is between FLOSS and proprietary bullcrap. If we let ourselves get divided, we become weaker.
For me the OSS movement was always about a better way of working, sharing output to multiply results. It was also about that model crushing proprietary development.
I don't think you can "co-opt" that. The fact that MS/amz/goog/FB do so much open development, providing FLOSS that underpins SO MANY other projects, means that we won. Only dinosaurs do proprietary anymore.
What is there to co-opt? To what end?
@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar the business model has moved. Facebook might be running a lot of FLOSS on the server but that does not translate to preserving the freedoms of their users. Instead of being locked on the desktop, they're locked in the cloud. Same with Google, same with Microsoft, etc.
Without copyleft there is an imbalance: they can use OSS tools, but we cannot use their proprietary tools. Combine that with their budgets and you have a recipe for keeping users locked in walled gardens.
That's the difference between Free/Libre and Open Source. Are you saying that the problem is MS and Co are only open source, not Libre? Because that charge can be leveled against a lot of (IMO good) OSS.
Sidebar: do you think that it's facebook's proprietary code that creates the walled garden? What about chrome, then?
@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar I think saying it's open-source's fault that corporate behemoths abuse the lack of copyleft in OSS licenses is no different from blaming my octogenarian grandmother for forgetting to lock the door and getting burgled.
Would locking the door stop the burglary and save everyone's time and money? Sure.
Was it my grandma's fault? No, I will blame the burglars.
Victim-blaming is never a good idea. And does not help.
@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar point is: MS, Google, and Facebook, and others, figured out a business model that enables them to use open-source software to still limit users and lock them in walled gardens. They leverage OSS to deny users the freedoms OSS was supposed to guarantee.
And this is done with cold, calculating premeditation. This is not something that "happened", it's what these companies consciously aim to do. Using OSS as a fig leaf for their monopolistic practices, diluting the term.
@ohthehugemanatee @Shamar and just as I hope I can convince my grandma to finally install a latch so that she doesn't get burgled anymore, I hope many OSS projects will switch to copyleft licenses so that they won't get abused by Microzon Facegoopple anymore.
But, to circle back to the start of this thread, just as shouting at my grandma and blaming her will not help, antagonizing OSS will also not help.
IMO you're missing an important aspect:
The narrative of OSS was that corpos, by making proprietary software, are:
- duplicating efforts
- making software of lower quality than possible
and doing OSS with copyleft licenses would:
- let multiple corpos use common software, to avoid duplication of efforts
- let multiple corpos cooperatively develop said common software, without fear that someone is gonna exploit them by making a proprietary fork
- reduce number of bugs, improve quality
and these goals are why forking is undesirable
@Shamar yeah I'm not arguing you, just correcting you :P
And btw. please keep me untagged in the original thread. I still see it in my TL, and will look at it once in a while, but I don't want to be notified.
@Shamar well, IMO the aspect I tooted about is the genesis of open-source, its initial argument.
The argument that Open Source is a more efficient way of developing software.
The very beginning of Open Source is a thesis similar to:
I don't give a shit about your politics, but if you want to stop wasting money and start being efficient in how you make software, you should put the source code out there, under a copyleft license.
And IMO everything else is just a conclusion from this thesis.
@Shamar I think the intention was that regardless of your political views, you should adopt copyleft and bazaar workflow, because this improves your software.
Now, if someone's moral opinion was that engineering should be amoral, chances are adopting OSS did not change that opinion.
Similarly, if someone's moral opinion was that an engineer should refuse to make immoral* software, I doublt adopting OSS would change that opinion.
*mental shortcut here, would need better definition
Of course my freedom to fork doesn't impact anyone else's freedom to share their work and deduplicate efforts.
Yet, when I fork, everyone who contributes to my fork, effectively contributes to duplication of efforts, and everyone who submits a bugfix to my fork, and not to the upstream, effectively contributes to not reducing the number of bugs in the upstream.
Also, everyone who uses my fork contributes to not testing the upstream.
So while the freedom to fork does not impact freedom to collaborate, there's still a tradeoff between actually forking and actually collaborating.
Because the motivation of OSS is not freedom, but deduplication of effort, they will tend to prefer not forking.
OTOH, because Free Software's motivation is freedom, it should (but do we observe it irl?) prefer forking.
I take your point and make the same argument often.
For example, the best desktop design was created decades ago and all of the people working on all the other desktop environments should stop and put all of their efforts into improving that one or on creating awesome applications. :)
But it's also important to remember the freedom to use others' work to try different ideas is just as important to free software.
I still see this as a difference between copyleft and open source. Large corps have always profited from OS code, since even before the term "open source" existed. Eg Parts of BSD's MIT-licensed X made it into multiple Unixes and early vers of Windows.
This is old news and not a problem, according to the people who still license their software this way. (Including Microsoft! Most MS contributions are MIT licensed) /1
@Shamar @rysiek @Wolf480pl
The free software movement is different, it has an ideological tenet behind it. But it doesn't prohibit use for profit. There's nothing saying you shouldn't use Drupal (GPL licensed) for profit. In fact the founder does it himself, and encouraged the commercial ecosystem.
So I hear a complaint that OS and free software are used to create walled gardens. Which is lame, but old news, and not a problem according to the projects. /2
Please do not conflate copyleft with Free Software.
Just becase a GPL-licensed project is fine with being used to create a walled garden, doesn't mean the freedoms of users are preserved.
Free Software is ok with commercial use of software by its users.
However, in case of web-based services, there's a question: who is the user?
One option is that the server admin is the user. Afterall, that's who downloaded and ran the software. That'd be consistent with GPL, and in this case the user's freedoms are preserved.
And in case of Facebook or Google, this makes even more sense, because those who "use" their services through website are products/milking cows, not users.
OTOH, from AGPL point of view, everyone who interacts with software over network is a user.
And in that case, a walled garden does not preserve the user's freedoms, particularly the freedom to modify the software.
Even in case of AGPL walled-garden software.
I think to preserve user freedoms in this model, it must be possible for the user to run their own node that is a 1st class citizen of the network.
So, p2p or federation.
Another question is, is any of those models acceptable, and if so, when?
Is it acceptable for your blog to treat its readers as non-users?
for your university's network printer?
your email server?
Is it possible for people to be free while using someone else's email server?
someone else's socnet?
printing on someone else's network printer?
reading someone else's blog?
@Shamar @rysiek @Wolf480pl
I also think you're confused about how these companies engage with open source. Facebook doesn't just "run" OSS; they wrote and released the most popular JS framework out there (reactjs), a legitimately game changing data store abstraction (graphql), and oh yeah they rewrote PHP to be a modern, fast language. Everyone ELSE is profiting from their work. And what is Microsoft's walled garden based on OSS? Azure? Genuinely curious. /3
@xrevan86 then I would point out to her that there are organized groups there abusing this freedom to the detriment of everyone else.
And if she's so inclined she can donate the house to a community that will take care to give people the freedom without enabling the abuse.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!