1. 5
  1.  

  2. 6

    I’m a little confused, because while the author seems to have an issue with capitalism the very real problem of not getting paid enough for software is solved…by selling restrictive and well-defined licenses.

    I think that the real problem with libre software development is the dawning realization that giving away software just isn’t profitable, full stop.

    1. 4
      1. The freedom for any person to decide to limit the use of their software for any purpose or category of purposes shall not be restricted, subject only to the requirements of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

      Please, let’s not bring cancel culture to Free Software.

      (Also, I’m unimpressed by the mischaracterisation of Rand’s views on violence and law. Given the obvious anti-capitalist leanings of the author, I’m inclined to assume it’s propaganda rather than honest ignorance though.)

      1. 1

        While not as strong as “freedom 1”, there is something called moral rights in copyright. Where I live it is AFAIK not possible to assign or waive these rights. I have not seen any discussion on what moral rights mean in relation to free software.

        From the Berne convention:

        (1) Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.

        It’s a can of worms.

      2. 2

        I think a large part of this post ignores the fact that 4F0 (or alternative freedom 2) completely precludes enforcement of alternative freedom 4, and that copyleft licenses were written in that context.

        The other problem is the triggering mechanism for copyleft. You only need the license when you want to do something that would violate copyright.

        So there’s no reasonable way to make someone return changes they don’t distribute to the community without requiring some advance license agreement before you give them the software.

        If your gripe with RMS is that he’s too capitalist or not collectivist enough, it seems a lock that you’re missing something.

        1. 2

          I commend the author for the time put into this article and the general lack of BS. But I don’t agree with the conclusions. Both philosophically and practically.

          Amidst all this glory, however, there is something utterly broken about the FOSS world. In short, it is one-sided, devoid of economic rights, and an active agent in the oppression of us all.

          I don’t understand the leap in this statement. I think the 4F has this as a feature, not a bug. It’s specifically devoid of economic rights. Not by flaw, but by design.

          The proposed freedoms (5F) are really just non-OSS, proprietary licenses. Already available and used by many commercial entities to restrict in ways they choose.

          I think it’s perfectly fine for organizations to choose to use such terms, but it’s a bit of doublespeak to call these out as freedoms and seek to replace free/open source software with these.

          I don’t think if OpenSSL was released under these terms it would achieve anywhere near the use it currently does because these new terms get very expensive, and are also ambiguous enough to create not just cost, but unpredictable cost. I don’t want to use software in any significant manner if I can’t depend on it. If the owner changes and then decides that they want to restrict access unless I pay up, that’s worse, I think, than just buying a traditional commercial license.

          1. 2

            I have no respect for anyone who thinks that Individualism is a sin. “Freedom” 1 of this person’s alternate list is entirely incompatible with the FSF’s first freedom, and any software with a license written to conform to these guidelines should be considered proprietary.