[GTALUG] "'Opens source' is not 'free software'"

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:26:43AM -0400, Evan Leibovitch 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.

I believe the answer is that yes they can.  This appears to be why the
AGPL license exists as per this:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html

-- 
Len Sorensen