/tech/ - Technology★

fsf_cake.jpg

>>891205 (OP)

you could copyright the word open

>>891205 (OP)

Case in point, OpenNIC vs OpenDNS

The former is based in free and open source software as well as being decentralized.

The latter is proprietary and run by Cisco, with the open label referring to it being publicly available.

"Oh no, they used a term in a way I don't like! Let's pester them to change it!". Fuck off, freetards.

>>891214

>>still insists software is open source because 'you can see the source'

No, that's not what happens. They insist it's open source because everyone who gets the software in the first place gets the source code with all rights attached. They don't give anything to the public at large.

And they're right. That's how the free software and open source definitions work. They're defined in terms of what you can do with software once you have it.

Whether that strategy is a good thing is orthogonal to whether the software is FOSS.

>What can be done to remedy it?

Create a proprietary label that implies all of FSF's requirements for something to be "free software" and distribute certificates for it under paid licenses, while suing anyone which tries to imply that they're compliant with said requirements.

>>891271

Are you suggesting that we go after freeware which isn't free software?

>>891205 (OP)

I'm getting deja vu.

"Freeware isn't actually free! It should be labeled as Shareware or Crippleware"

>>891214

>>Interestingly it's common that the companies involved obtained the source code they are monetising under an open source license, while they themselves own the copyrights to a tiny percentage of the code. They can be considered to have enclosed the commons, enjoying the full benefits of open source themselves -- and celebrating it -- but excluding others from collaboration on the same terms.

Interesting indeed. This is what the BSD cucks/lolberts want, have a few parasites steal public goods that were created by society at large and then rent limited access to it back to the people for immense profit. Presumably because they all think they would be said leeches. Just look at all the PS4 owners, none of them have any of the freedoms the BSD cucks so loudly defended, despite using a slightly modified FreeBSD. Masses of unpaid useful idiots do the lion's share of the work while being rewarded with a proprietary OS that restricts and spies on them while Sony reaps all the profits. Thanks corporate cucks.

>>891293

Were you born stupid or just heavily brainwashed? The majority of BSD code is made by a small number of individuals. "Society at large" can fuck off, because they don't do jack shit except buy consumer shits and don't give a rat's ass about license anyway. And you can fuck off because you're a lamer who wants to tell people what license they should use, even though you won't ever commit a single line to any BSD project.

>>891314

Why are you blaming libertarians, you dense cunt? I'm a libertarian and hate the idea of Open Source. Free Software is the only solution.

>>891314

>>891293

>This is what the BSD cucks/lolberts want

Wouldn't a libertarian be opposed to a result caused by copyright/patents/other "IP" law crap inherently? I think you're just making a strawman to justify your own politics.

> have a few parasites steal public goods that were created by society at large

Software is more like a club good usually. It is pretty simple to exclude someone from using your source code by simply giving them a binary and never giving them the source code, or never giving them anything at all. If you release the source code widely enough under a free software license, then it is more like a public good.

>>891303

>even though you won't ever commit a single line to any BSD project.

True, most people won't commit a single line to any BSD project because of the permissive nature of the BSDs. Thats why the GNU userland and the Linux kernel dominates the open source world.

>the reason linux won over bsd was due to lawyershits and not because finland is less gay than californistan

>>891326

Mind explaining the reasoning?

>>891327

>Wouldn't a libertarian be opposed to a result caused by copyright/patents/other "IP" law crap inherently?

I've read that argument and it may be true because it is a law. But put essentially the same thing in an EULA and they celebrate it because you made "the free choice" to accept the terms, ignoring circumstances. Also look at the signature here, literally an Ayn Rand quote:

https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy/2015-July/004551.html

>Software is more like a club good usually.

FLOSS is the public good while proprietary software is privately owned. Those who are not the proprietor merely have a license (or not) to use it under certain conditions.

>>891331

During LinuxCon, Torvalds was full of praise for GNU GPL: "The GPL ensures that nobody is ever going to take advantage of your code. It will remain free and nobody can take that away from you. I think that's a big deal for community management... FSF [Free Software Foundation] and I don't have a loving relationship, but I love GPL v2. I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint."

And he thinks the BSD license is bad for everyone: "Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about," Torvalds said.

>>891338

Free Software is moral, open source is not

>>891361

I don't see what's wrong with that. You want to force people to release source? What next, force them to write code for you?

>>891340

>But put essentially the same thing in an EULA and they celebrate it because you made "the free choice" to accept the terms, ignoring circumstances.

A legally binding contract inherently requires contract laws. If you're talking to the sort of people who think contract law is an acceptable regulation, then you would just need to convince them of some modifications to it that require the parties to understand what they are agreeing. Once you agree to a regulation like contract law, you invite more regulations than the alternative of no contract law where the parties would enact some sort of violence or negative consequence on each other if there was a breach of contract, because contract law inherently involves a lot of private rules enforced by the government.

From my understanding, without "IP law", you'd basically be asking the user to agree to terms for a piece of software that the EULA writer has no exclusive rights to. There would be less legal jargon to put in EULAs, although they'd find a way to make filler I guess. Still possible to put the chains on the user, but the user has less of a reason to agree. What happens if the user bypasses the EULA via some method?

>FLOSS is the public good while proprietary software is privately owned.

A public good would be non-excludable. Sometimes software can be excluded even if it is open source, for example some obscure software's repo goes down and nobody has copies of the source anymore. IIRC Elona was open source briefly when the original developer quit, but I don't think the source is available anymore.

>>891357

What do you mean?

Do you mean that free software is morally motivated, and open source isn't? That's (more or less) true.

Or do you mean that free software, as a category, is moral, while open source, as a category, isn't? As categories they're almost identical, so you'd have to back that one up.

>>891363

>You want to force people to release source?

Not at all. Ideally people would be non-retards and do the responsible thing, refusing to use the program if it doesn't provide source. i.e. those who withhold the source won't get any customers.

It's like refusing to buy a laptop because it has no user-serviceable parts (soldered battery/RAM/HDD), or refusing to buy cookware because they won't tell you what the fuck it's made of (e.g. Stainless steel pot? What kind of steel?). Most braindead consumers won't give a shit about that stuff, but they'll be glad when they do benefit from it.

>>891384

>buying

>paying

oh yeah open sores software is just rolling in the money. Not like it's full of hobo-tier faggots who literally can't afford internet.

>>891205 (OP)

(link doesn't load)

do they finally have open souce dishwashers now?

>>891388

>open souce is poorfags XDD

learn some basic concepts before posting

>>891205 (OP)

>5R permissions

>not four freedoms

>corporate buzzword

Fuck off with this soulless kike shit.

>>891314

>libertarians are anarchists now

Open Mouth

After looking at title I thought this thread is about open source washing machines firmware.

>>892446

Go back to kolchoque, fgt.

Realize that even in technical contexts, buzzwords are used heavily and work. Look at the Computer Display Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard ) full names. There's no reason to not just use the numbers instead of calling them shit like "Half Quarter", "Super", "Extended", "Extended Plus", "Ultra Extended", "Full", "Widescreen Super Extended", all the way up to shit like "Wide Quad Eltra Extended". People like words, whether they actually mean anything or not. People are susceptible to marketing terms regardless. You are too, but it's probably a different set of words, or subtle enough that you don't notice it.