Re: FWB: Foss with benefits
Charles Cossé <[email protected]> Fri, 6 Feb 2015 16:41:18 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.fsf.education.europe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABtoULgOz-my70tzwaEuSGvmHQRDxeoh1RMw2Kt3x-XpJ4bAtw@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============4684442709136632216== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2cb900a10f7050e73f5ee --001a11c2cb900a10f7050e73f5ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley < [email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 06 February 2015 12:42:15 Charles Coss=C3=A9 wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Charles Coss=C3=A9 wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > In light of points made in this conversation I spent some time > reviewing > > > > FSF literature and definitions. At the end of "Why Open Source > misses > > > > > > the > > > > > > > point of Free Software" > > > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html> > > > > > > there is > > > > > > > the following: > > > > > > > > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work o= n > an > > > > > > > > > activity that calls itself =E2=80=9Copen.=E2=80=9D Even if the ac= tivity is good in > and > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side= . > > > > > > (src > > > > > > > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html > >) > > > > > > > > At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified my text > > > > throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software", s= o > as > > > > > > not > > > > > > > to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the project. > > > > > > Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meanings of > > > 'free' > > > the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to RMS) > Free > > > Libre Open Source Software. > > > > The thing is, there are 2+ audiences reading the pages in question, and > I'm > > almost certain that most people will be more confused by anything but > > simple term "open source" ... so how about this: I'll use the term > > "GPLv3'd" throughout, and modify my templates so that I can add a link > > (current limitation of my own making) ... and link to a full-on > explanation > > of the differences in terminology (my explanation, and further links to > FSF > > pages). I think that would satisfy pretty much everything ... do you > agree? > > FLOSS, the acronym for Free Libre Open Source Software, has been > established > for 14 years, seems to be relatively well known and is indexed on > Wikipedia[1]. Which points out it addresses more that just the English > language. FLOSS is the advertised _preference_, if you want to do > something > different then to my mind "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software" > is the > better of your suggestions. > Well, i don't know what i want to do anymore, but i will convince myself to use terminology acceptable to FSF, because i want to work with FSF and i do share much in common. Quick digression: I am 49 now, and I recall when the term FLOSS suddenly hit the stage ... and nobody explained to me where it came from ... but I was already developing FLOSS/GPL'd education software at that time ... and like most/many "old dogs" i didn't see the need for a "new trick". Especially because it doesn't sound very nice in my ear ... much like when JPython had to change names to "Jython" ... yuk yuk and yuk again! I still refer to it as JPython and "jython" in parentheses if necessary. > > This is because in practice a 'open source' on its own effectively means > 'needs > licensing and blob checking' to the free software community. Some devs d= o > things like say 'open source (GPL)' and then include e.g. the proprietary > code > to access Spotify in their offering. > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software#FLOSS > > > > > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today: The notion= s > of > > > > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often. Personally, I don'= t > > > > believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe. Th= at > > > > has > > > > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my > > > > cosmology. So FSF philosophy alienates me long before > considerations > > > > of > > > > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not. That argument = is > > > > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with > software. > > > > > > To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recommend to you. I= f > you > > > believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths) > do > > > you > > > propose to cook and eat your own children at some point? > > > > Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wrong does not imp= ly > > that I would therefore propose such a thing. People can refrain from > such > > things on their own, for obvious reasons, without the need to invoke > > unprovable philosophical arguments. > > You needed one iteration more. You've missed your 'for obvious reasons' > implicitly acknowledges a fundamental _human_ judgement of something as > wrong does it not? Therefore within the scope of a human existence it is > reasonable to contend there are other fundamental rights and wrongs. > Ummm ... "fundamental" and "human" ... nothing human is fundamental. But it's okay, i'm not going to eat children. Just torture them with software :) > > I appreciate YMMV, but since you can expect most of us here to believe in > fundamental human rights because we're advocating new ones (myself > included) > you can also expect us not to agree with the contention that there is no > such > beast. > > > > > > > "Education <https://www.gnu.org/education/>" is at the core of FSF'= s > > > > mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education that FS= F > is > > > > referring to, as far as I can tell. > > > > > > > > Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids > > > > > > education. ( > > > > > > > > src <https://www.gnu.org/education/>) > > > > > > > > If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-listed game > > > > TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't > > > > "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids > to > > > > *use*. In fact, it's JavaScript, so Computer Science students can > even > > > > still read the code and learn. > > > > > > There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned from > it. > > > > I don't buy that in this case. If it's my creation and I want people t= o > > use what they learn from studying it, but just don't GPL it, then there > are > > no legal impediments. > > Unless you do the legal paperwork (e.g. a GPL license) then they are > reliant > on you not changing your mind, nor anyone (say a Patent Troll) suing you > and > recouping the legal rights in your works as compensation or a bunch of ha= rd > headed attorneys in charge of your estate when you pass away deciding > differently. > If you put non-GPL'd code on the internet that discloses that 12x12=3D144 a= nd I take my information from that, then you can sue me? I think I'll go pro-s=C3=A9 for the first couple of those hearings ... and same goes for so= me basic piece of code ... "hello world" for example. I don't know ... let's not argue this point. > So please continue to give them their GPL rights. > I'm sure people are weary, but objection! The rights are not "theirs" apriori ... not until I give the rights to them. I work hard to gain a competitive advantage in the job market, not to just give-away the knowledge that sets me apart. The moment I jot-down an idea somebody else does not suddenly have a "(fundamental) right" to it. > > > > Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details of > the > > > > > relevant laws. > > > > I'm gonna save my eyesight for something else ... but I believe you tha= t > > the legalese is out there. > > > > > Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights not > lack > > > of > > > encumbrance. You have made a common mistaken conflation of the two. > > > > I am talking about liberty/rights ... reading the above I don't see > > anything related to a "lack of encumbrance" ... what / who's encumbranc= e? > > The phrasing was borrowed from the OED. In this case just because the ki= ds > are able (aka free as in unrestricted/unencumbered) to read and learn fro= m > the > code because it is Javascript does not mean [because of the the previous > point] they have their software freedom rights guaranteed as per GPLv3 an= d > are > therefore guaranteed to be able to use their knowledge. > So you are saying that everyone has a fundamental human right to everything, regardless of the GPL, but the GPL makes it clear that the author agrees with that position in case of lawyers? In conclusion, if this is _this_ hard for me to understand (and accept) ... how can we expect someone entirely unfamiliar with such intricacies to even care? Eating children, lawyers, thought police ... sounds like "Nightmare on (Free) Software Street". Please go easy on me if you reply :) And thanks for the continued thought-provoking discussion -- Charles > > Leny > > _______________________________________________ > European "Free Software in Education" mailing list > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu > --001a11c2cb900a10f7050e73f5ee Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo= te">On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank= ">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"= gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20= 4,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5">On Friday 06= February 2015 12:42:15 Charles Coss=C3=A9 wrote:<br> > Hi again,<br> ><br> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley <<br> ><br> > <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected].= uk</a>> wrote:<br> > > On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Charles Coss=C3=A9 wrote:<br> > > > Hi All,<br> > > ><br> > > > In light of points made in this conversation I spent some ti= me reviewing<br> > > > FSF literature and definitions.=C2=A0 =C2=A0At the end of &q= uot;Why Open Source misses<br> > ><br> > > the<br> > ><br> > > > point of Free Software"<br> > > > <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-mi= sses-the-point.html" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-= source-misses-the-point.html</a>><br> > ><br> > > there is<br> > ><br> > > > the following:<br> > > ><br> > > > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to= work on an<br> > > ><br> > > > > activity that calls itself =E2=80=9Copen.=E2=80=9D Even= if the activity is good in and<br> > ><br> > > of<br> > ><br> > > > > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm o= n the side.<br> > ><br> > > (src<br> > ><br> > > > > <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sour= ce-misses-the-point.html" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/= open-source-misses-the-point.html</a>>)<br> > > ><br> > > > At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified m= y text<br> > > > throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) educat= ion software", so as<br> > ><br> > > not<br> > ><br> > > > to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the proje= ct.<br> > ><br> > > Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meaning= s of<br> > > 'free'<br> > > the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to R= MS) Free<br> > > Libre Open Source Software.<br> ><br> > The thing is, there are 2+ audiences reading the pages in question, an= d I'm<br> > almost certain that most people will be more confused by anything but<= br> > simple term "open source" ... so how about this:=C2=A0 I'= ;ll use the term<br> > "GPLv3'd" throughout, and modify my templates so that I = can add a link<br> > (current limitation of my own making) ... and link to a full-on explan= ation<br> > of the differences in terminology (my explanation, and further links t= o FSF<br> > pages).=C2=A0 I think that would satisfy pretty much everything ... do= you agree?<br> <br> </div></div>FLOSS, the acronym for Free Libre Open Source Software, has bee= n established<br> for 14 years, seems to be relatively well known and is indexed on<br> Wikipedia[1].=C2=A0 Which points out it addresses more that just the Englis= h<br> language.=C2=A0 FLOSS is the advertised _preference_, if you want to do som= ething<br> different then to my mind=C2=A0 "free/open-source (GPL'd) educatio= n software" is the<br> better of your suggestions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, i don= 't know what i want to do anymore, but i will convince myself to use te= rminology acceptable to FSF, because i want to work with FSF and i do share= much in common.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Quick digression:=C2=A0 I am 49 now, and I rec= all when the term FLOSS suddenly hit the stage ... and nobody explained to = me where it came from ... but I was already developing FLOSS/GPL'd educ= ation software at that time ... and like most/many "old dogs" i d= idn't see the need for a "new trick".=C2=A0 Especially becaus= e it doesn't sound very nice in my ear ... much like when JPython had t= o change names to "Jython" ... yuk yuk and yuk again!=C2=A0 I sti= ll refer to it as JPython and "jython" in parentheses if necessar= y.=C2=A0 <br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= =3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding= -left:1ex"> <br> This is because in practice a 'open source' on its own effectively = means 'needs<br> licensing and blob checking' to the free software community.=C2=A0 Some= devs do<br> things like say 'open source (GPL)' and then include e.g. the propr= ietary code<br> to access Spotify in their offering.<br> <br> [1] <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof= tware#FLOSS" target=3D"_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_te= rms_for_free_software#FLOSS</a><br> <span class=3D""><br> > > > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today:=C2= =A0 The notions of<br> > > > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often.=C2= =A0 Personally, I don't<br> > > > believe that there are such things at all ... in the univers= e.=C2=A0 =C2=A0That<br> > > > has<br> > > > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except= my<br> > > > cosmology.=C2=A0 =C2=A0So FSF philosophy alienates me long b= efore considerations<br> > > > of<br> > > > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not.=C2=A0 Th= at argument is<br> > > > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do wit= h software.<br> > ><br> > > To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I reco= mmend to you.=C2=A0 If you<br> > > believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human tru= ths) do<br> > > you<br> > > propose to cook and eat your own children at some point?<br> ><br> > Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wrong does not im= ply<br> > that I would therefore propose such a thing.=C2=A0 =C2=A0People can re= frain from such<br> > things on their own, for obvious reasons, without the need to invoke<b= r> > unprovable philosophical arguments.<br> <br> </span>You needed one iteration more.=C2=A0 You've missed your 'for= obvious reasons'<br> implicitly acknowledges a fundamental _human_ judgement of something as<br> wrong does it not?=C2=A0 Therefore within the scope of a human existence it= is<br> reasonable to contend there are other fundamental rights and wrongs.<br></b= lockquote><div><br></div><div>Ummm ... "fundamental" and "hu= man" ... nothing human is fundamental.=C2=A0 But it's okay, i'= m not going to eat children.=C2=A0 Just torture them with software :)<br></= div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px = 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <br> I appreciate YMMV, but since you can expect most of us here to believe in<b= r> fundamental human rights because we're advocating new ones (myself incl= uded)<br> you can also expect us not to agree with the contention that there is no su= ch<br> beast.<br> <span class=3D""><br> ><br> > > > "Education <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/education= /" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/education/</a>>" is at the= core of FSF's<br> > > > mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education = that FSF is<br> > > > referring to, as far as I can tell.<br> > > ><br> > > > Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbi= ds<br> > ><br> > > education.=C2=A0 (<br> > ><br> > > > > src <<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/education/" targ= et=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/education/</a>>)<br> > > ><br> > > > If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-liste= d game<br> > > > TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly is= n't<br> > > > "forbidding" any education that it was ever intend= ed for, i.e. kids to<br> > > > *use*. In fact, it's JavaScript, so Computer Science stu= dents can even<br> > > > still read the code and learn.<br> > ><br> > > There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned = from it.<br> ><br> > I don't buy that in this case.=C2=A0 If it's my creation and I= want people to<br> > use what they learn from studying it, but just don't GPL it, then = there are<br> > no legal impediments.<br> <br> </span>Unless you do the legal paperwork (e.g. a GPL license) then they are= reliant<br> on you not changing your mind, nor anyone (say a Patent Troll) suing you an= d<br> recouping the legal rights in your works as compensation or a bunch of hard= <br> headed attorneys in charge of your estate when you pass away deciding<br> differently.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you put non-GPL'd c= ode on the internet that discloses that 12x12=3D144 and I take my informati= on from that, then you can sue me?=C2=A0 I think I'll go pro-s=C3=A9 fo= r the first couple of those hearings ... and same goes for some basic piece= of code ... "hello world" for example.=C2=A0 I don't know ..= . let's not argue this point. <br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"= gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20= 4,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> So please continue to give them their GPL rights.<br></blockquote><div><br>= </div><div>I'm sure people are weary, but objection! The rights are not= "theirs" apriori ... not until I give the rights to them.=C2=A0 = I work hard to gain a competitive advantage in the job market, not to just= give-away the knowledge that sets me apart.=C2=A0 The moment I jot-down an= idea somebody else does not suddenly have a "(fundamental) right"= ; to it.=C2=A0 <br></div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu= ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20= 4);padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""> ><br> > Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details o= f the<br> ><br> > > relevant laws.<br> ><br> > I'm gonna save my eyesight for something else ... but I believe yo= u that<br> > the legalese is out there.<br> ><br> > > Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights n= ot lack<br> > > of<br> > > encumbrance.=C2=A0 You have made a common mistaken conflation of = the two.<br> ><br> > I am talking about liberty/rights ... reading the above I don't se= e<br> > anything related to a "lack of encumbrance" ... what / who&#= 39;s encumbrance?<br> <br> </span>The phrasing was borrowed from the OED.=C2=A0 In this case just beca= use the kids<br> are able (aka free as in unrestricted/unencumbered) to read and learn from = the<br> code because it is Javascript does not mean [because of the the previous<br= > point] they have their software freedom rights guaranteed as per GPLv3 and = are<br> therefore guaranteed to be able to use their knowledge.<br></blockquote><di= v><br></div><div>So you are saying that everyone has a fundamental human ri= ght to everything, regardless of the GPL, but the GPL makes it clear that t= he author agrees with that position in case of lawyers?=C2=A0 <br><br></div= ><div>In conclusion, if this is _this_ hard for me to understand (and accep= t) ... how can we expect someone entirely unfamiliar with such intricacies = to even care?=C2=A0=C2=A0 Eating children, lawyers, thought police ... soun= ds like "Nightmare on (Free) Software Street".=C2=A0 Please go ea= sy on me if you reply :)=C2=A0 And thanks for the continued thought-provoki= ng discussion --<br><br></div><div>Charles<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><block= quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1= px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5"><br> Leny<br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> European "Free Software in Education" mailing list<br> <br> <a href=3D"https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu" target=3D"_blank"= >https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div> --001a11c2cb900a10f7050e73f5ee-- --===============4684442709136632216== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ European "Free Software in Education" mailing list https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu --===============4684442709136632216==--