[GTALUG] "'Opens source' is not 'free software'"
Alvin Starr
alvin at netvel.net
Thu Jul 13 10:47:06 EDT 2017
Hmmmm.
True cloud services are an interesting quirk.
On 07/13/2017 10:26 AM, Evan Leibovitch via talk wrote:
> After decades with no apparent change in arguments or hope for
> resolution, I find the whole debate elitist and entertainingly
> stagnant. Reminds me of candy
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QpPNcT-J4> advertisements
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0>.
>
> As is common in religious debates, the two sides tend to come from
> different mindsets and don't even get what the other is saying. I find
> the two approaches complementary rather than in opposition.
>
> Want to do it for the improvement of society? Great.
> Want to do it to improve efficiency, reduce bugs and involve a broader
> talent pool? Also great.
> Just do it. By and large the paths are the same.
>
> What has more-recently astounded me about the binary nature of the
> debate is that it has ignored a third aspect that challenges the other
> two -- cloud-based software. The GPL does not require you to release
> your modified source if you don't redistribute your code at all. A
> cloud service thus can use software under even the most "viral"
> licenses without worry because the result is only actually executed on
> computers wholly under its control.
>
> While people still argue about closed MS-Word versus open LibreOffice,
> they ignore Google Docs -- Is that open or closed? Can its developers
> incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social
> goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely
> ignored for an assortment of reasons.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> On 13 July 2017 at 09:37, Lennart Sorensen via talk <talk at gtalug.org
> <mailto:talk at gtalug.org>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:44:51AM +0200, ac via talk wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:09:55 -0400 (EDT)
> > "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk at gtalug.org
> <mailto:talk at gtalug.org>> wrote:
> > > I found this article interesting and useful
> > >
> <https://opensource.com/business/16/11/open-source-not-free-software
> <https://opensource.com/business/16/11/open-source-not-free-software>>
> > > This guy disagrees:
> > > <https://meshedinsights.com/2017/06/07/free-vs-open/
> <https://meshedinsights.com/2017/06/07/free-vs-open/>>
> >
> > imho, it is semantics / point of view..
> >
> > my own pov (ymmv): Truly free and truly open is everything BSD
> licensed
> > (including my own BSD released code/projects/software) my GPL etc
> > licensed software is open, and free if you are only a user, but
> not so
> > much free if you are a dev, etc. :)
>
> The goal of GPL is the freedom of the source code, and hence the
> freedom
> of future users of the source code. It is not the freedom of someone
> to decide to deny others the same freedom, unlike the BSD license
> where
> the receiver is the one that is most free to do what they want.
> So yes
> the GPL gives each user less freedom in the interest of giving all
> users
> that same level of freedom in using the code.
>
> Different goal.
>
> --
> Len Sorensen
> ---
> Talk Mailing List
> talk at gtalug.org <mailto:talk at gtalug.org>
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> <https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto, Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>
>
>
> ---
> Talk Mailing List
> talk at gtalug.org
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
--
Alvin Starr || land: (905)513-7688
Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133
alvin at netvel.net ||
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170713/64d87bff/attachment.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list