Yesterday, I received a LinkedIn email from a talent scout at Uber asking if I'd like to work on their core infrastructure.
My reply:
"Thanks for reaching out, but this is not something I am interested in. A bit on principle, as I won't work with Uber on the grounds that
* their apps are not free software
* I don't sympathize with their undermining of the taxi business, replacing trained and insured drivers with what is effectively what used to be called "pirate taxis" paying "app taxes" to an American company.
All the best to you too, (signed)"
The first reason is really sufficient as I won't work with proprietary software if I can help it (and right now I can, thankfully), but the second would also be sufficient in itself if their app *were* free software.
Best
Carsten
It's even worse than that: Uber's self-driving fleet http://readwrite.com/2016/12/15/uber-at-odds-with-the-california-department-of-motor-vehicles-tl4/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=RWW&utm_content=Uber+told+to+pull+over+self-driving+fleet+by+California%27s+DMV
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
Yesterday, I received a LinkedIn email from a talent scout at Uber asking if I'd like to work on their core infrastructure.
My reply:
"Thanks for reaching out, but this is not something I am interested in. A bit on principle, as I won't work with Uber on the grounds that
their apps are not free software
I don't sympathize with their undermining of the taxi business,
replacing trained and insured drivers with what is effectively what used to be called "pirate taxis" paying "app taxes" to an American company.
All the best to you too, (signed)"
The first reason is really sufficient as I won't work with proprietary software if I can help it (and right now I can, thankfully), but the second would also be sufficient in itself if their app *were* free software.
Best
Carsten
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 16/12/16 18:34, Charles Cossé wrote:
It's even worse than that: Uber's self-driving fleet http://readwrite.com/2016/12/15/uber-at-odds-with-the-california-department-of-motor-vehicles-tl4/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=RWW&utm_content=Uber+told+to+pull+over+self-driving+fleet+by+California%27s+DMV
Elevators used to have drivers before computers were invented
What would that matter?
On Dec 17, 2016 8:55 AM, "mray" mail@mray.de wrote:
On 17.12.2016 07:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Elevators used to have drivers before computers were invented
Very good point. I'd love to know that even elevators run free software, though.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 17/12/16 18:46, Charles Cossé wrote:
What would that matter?
If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay service charges to the company that maintains it.
If the software and specifications are free, you have a wider choice of companies to maintain the elevator and the service charges would potentially be lower.
On Dec 17, 2016 8:55 AM, "mray" <mail@mray.de mailto:mail@mray.de> wrote:
On 17.12.2016 07:56, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Elevators used to have drivers before computers were invented > Very good point. I'd love to know that even elevators run free software, though. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org <mailto:Discussion@lists.fsfe.org> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion <https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion>
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi,
Op 17-12-16 om 20:13 schreef Daniel Pocock:
On 17/12/16 18:46, Charles Cossé wrote:
What would that matter?
If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay service charges to the company that maintains it.
If the software and specifications are free, you have a wider choice of companies to maintain the elevator and the service charges would potentially be lower.
Which is true in an open and transparent market.
Alas, on this world, including the Netherlands, there is no shortage of actors who make a living by either disturbing the market, or by putting on a smoke screen to hinder transparency.
Best regards,
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay service charges to the company that maintains it.
With all due respect, where's the motivation for the poor bugger who
writes the free software? I believe that there is still something missing from this equation.
If the software and specifications are free, you have a wider choice of companies to maintain the elevator and the service charges would potentially be lower.
So it's okay to pay the company to maintain the elevator but not the software developer? Where's the motivation for the software developer?
On 12/17/2016 08:29 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro mailto:daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay service charges to the company that maintains it.With all due respect, where's the motivation for the poor bugger who writes the free software? I believe that there is still something missing from this equation.
The software developer would normally be paid by the hour to produce free software for industrial use.
That's what my company does, anyway, even if we don't make software for elevators or embedded systems in general.
So it's okay to pay the company to maintain the elevator but not the software developer? Where's the motivation for the software developer?
... to maintain the elevator, and as part of that, the software. The developer's motivation would be the paycheck. Payment by invoiceable hours is a standard business model for free software developers. Support contracts are too.
On 17/12/16 20:36, Carsten Agger wrote:
On 12/17/2016 08:29 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Daniel Pocock <mailto:daniel@pocock.prodaniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay service charges to the company that maintains it.With all due respect, where's the motivation for the poor bugger who writes the free software? I believe that there is still something missing from this equation.
The software developer would normally be paid by the hour to produce free software for industrial use.
That's what my company does, anyway, even if we don't make software for elevators or embedded systems in general.
So it's okay to pay the company to maintain the elevator but not the software developer? Where's the motivation for the software developer?
... to maintain the elevator, and as part of that, the software. The developer's motivation would be the paycheck. Payment by invoiceable hours is a standard business model for free software developers. Support contracts are too.
Did anything in my original email suggest the developer would not be paid?
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
On 12/17/2016 08:29 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Daniel Pocock < daniel@pocock.pro daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
If you own an apartment in a building with elevators, you have to pay service charges to the company that maintains it.
With all due respect, where's the motivation for the poor bugger who
writes the free software? I believe that there is still something missing from this equation.
The software developer would normally be paid by the hour to produce free software for industrial use.
That just translates to "the company giving-away their own motivation / competetive advantage", does it not? I'm all about free software, and paying to develop free software is a step in the right direction, but still ... the likelihood that the software would even benefit another elevator manufacturer seems unrealistic ... and thus cluttering-up fsf software archives with useless elevator software ... I know, there should be open standards for it ... but c'mon :)
That's what my company does, anyway, even if we don't make software for elevators or embedded systems in general.
So it's okay to pay the company to maintain the elevator but not the software developer? Where's the motivation for the software developer?
... to maintain the elevator, and as part of that, the software. The developer's motivation would be the paycheck. Payment by invoiceable hours is a standard business model for free software developers. Support contracts are too.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Saturday 17. December 2016 20.48.24 Charles Cossé wrote:
I'm all about free software, and paying to develop free software is a step in the right direction, but still ... the likelihood that the software would even benefit another elevator manufacturer seems unrealistic ...
This is where we come full circle in a discussion that has largely been tangential to what the original message was about. First of all, the freedoms associated with Free Software go far beyond whether only the producers get benefits from such transparency: to focus only on that would be a classic "open source" argument.
Where this returns to the original message is in precisely the matter of whether people can make a decent living and do so ethically. The second point made in that message may seem like a totally separate thing from the experience of the software developer working on Uber's infrastructure. Here's a quote contrasting the benefits of a driver and a developer at Uber:
"Keep in mind that you don’t get fringe benefits as an independent contractor. No paid sick leave or vacation days, no subsidized health insurance or free coffee or snacks in the company cafeteria. No employer matching contributions to your 401(k) savings plan. No educational assistance, group term life insurance, health savings accounts and so forth.
Things would be different if you worked for Uber Technologies. You would receive a 401(k) plan, gym reimbursement, nine paid company holidays, full medical/dental/visions package and an unlimited vacation policy. You might even get snacks in Uber’s lunchroom."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/02/20/the-hidden-costs... of-being-an-uber-driver/
Just as Uber and other companies do very nicely out of the "gig economy" by encouraging people to work without normal employment protections and rights, emphasising the "flexible" aspects of working as a contractor and the supposedly greater rewards available, those doing the work appear to end up working for less, paying for necessities out of their own pocket (like healthcare and insurance), or maybe even doing without those things completely. And people working for Uber's competitors experience an erosion of their own working conditions as Uber unfairly competes and forces those competitors to reduce their own expenses.
Now, software development for Uber might be done on a regular employment contract, meaning that people in those jobs have escaped the "gig economy" (for now), but elsewhere the drive for deregulation and exploitation still applies. When you note that "paying to develop free software is a step in the right direction", it indicates that people still expect Free Software developers to work for less than others or even for nothing, all because some people made a thing out of "open source" being more economically "efficient", and thus introducing a rather similar phenomenon of leaning on the workers to be cheaper at producing stuff so that businesses can be more profitable.
So it turns out that those of us wanting to write Free Software and get paid for it actually have more in common with the average Uber driver than one might first have thought. Carsten's objections are both valid ones after all.
Paul
On 17.12.2016 18:46, Charles Cossé wrote:
What would that matter?
The question is "why would it not matter?" Free Software seems like a sensible default. Why would I ever *prefer* trusting my body/life with software that is a secret to everybody but the manufacturer? (Same with all kinds of transportation like cars, buses, planes,...)
Other concerns about maintenance sound sensible as well.
On Dec 17, 2016 8:55 AM, "mray" mail@mray.de wrote:
On 17.12.2016 07:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Elevators used to have drivers before computers were invented
Very good point. I'd love to know that even elevators run free software, though.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 7:35 AM, mray mail@mray.de wrote:
On 17.12.2016 18:46, Charles Cossé wrote:
What would that matter?
The question is "why would it not matter?" Free Software seems like a sensible default.
Why would I ever *prefer* trusting my body/life with software that is a secret to everybody but the manufacturer? (Same with all kinds of transportation like cars, buses, planes,...)
Only you can answer questions of personal preference. But I'm not trying to abandon the question, and I want to have this discussion. I get the feeling that the FSF communities hold an underlying belief that the freedom being espoused is somehow fundamental, as in a universal truth or moral oblication. But regardless of how hard-line of a stance each individual takes, isn't there some irony there? After all, "freedom" should also mean "freedom to license ones software however one pleases"?
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line? Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright? We put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one type. It oseems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply everywhere, if it is real or universal, and not just to software.
Several years ago I read Utopia, by Thomas Moore. It was very satisfying to read ... until I got to the part at which it was revealed that even Utopia has slaves! As I recall, it was argued that having slaves was the only way to realize Utopia, in the end. When I picked-up that book I thought I was going to finally read a perfect recipe for society, but no.
Earlier in this discussion it was pointed out that models for FOSS development which compensate the developer can and do exist. Taking the case of elevator software, the elevator company would pay the developer then give-away their intellectual property. Okay, if that's what the elevator company wants to do. But the FSF position sounds to me like one of moral obligation somehow, and I'd like clarification on that.
An alternative would be to not attempt to dictate and criticize people for not using open licensing, but to find ways to make it attractive and workable. I believe in free software -- it's been a cornerstone of my career and I contribute because I love my country and my planet -- but I'm not sure that the elevator company benefits from giving-away their intellectual property like that. But I do certainly believe that there are creative and synergistic ways to create livelihoods and FOSS at the same time, just not in every context. And when this discussion finds closure I would like to share one such plan that I, personally, have spent years working on, but which requires a community (two communities, actually) to realize it. (It is a FOSS eco-system that can generate education software, provide FOSS jobs and help parents, in case you are curious. I'm just re-working the presentation of the idea in an effort to avoid past mistakes and misunderstandings).
Thank you all for this discussion!
Other concerns about maintenance sound sensible as well.
On Dec 17, 2016 8:55 AM, "mray" mail@mray.de wrote:
On 17.12.2016 07:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Elevators used to have drivers before computers were invented
Very good point. I'd love to know that even elevators run free software, though.
On 12/18/2016 08:03 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 7:35 AM, mray <mail@mray.de mailto:mail@mray.de> wrote:
On 17.12.2016 18:46, Charles Cossé wrote: > What would that matter? > The question is "why would it not matter?" Free Software seems like a sensible default. Why would I ever *prefer* trusting my body/life with software that is a secret to everybody but the manufacturer? (Same with all kinds of transportation like cars, buses, planes,...)[...]
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line? Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright? We put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one type. It seems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply everywhere, if it is real or universal, and not just to software.
[...]
The questions you ask here are very basic and can be answered by yourself if you read the articles at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html carefully.
E.g., nobody are "giving away their intellectual property" when releasing free software e.g. under the GPL. And some of the main systems that govern your life actually *are* supposed to be transparent - e.g.. society, where you have various FOIA acts.
Note also that this mailing list is not organized by the FSF but by the FSFE, which is a different organization, thus questions about the FSF's stand on different subjects can't really be answered here. But the answers to the more basic points are at the gny.org/philosophy link.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
[...]
The questions you ask here are very basic and can be answered by yourself if you read the articles at
Yes, thank you, I've read it several times in the past 20 years of developing free software. I don't believe that the apparent irony of "freedom to license how you like" is addressed in those documents.
E.g., nobody are "giving away their intellectual property" when releasing free software e.g. under the GPL. And some of the main systems that govern your life actually *are* supposed to be transparent - e.g.. society, where you have various FOIA acts.
Note also that this mailing list is not organized by the FSF but by the FSFE, which is a different organization, thus questions about the FSF's stand on different subjects can't really be answered here. But the answers to the more basic points are at the gny.org/philosophy link.
Thanks, I am also aware that this is FSFE.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 12/18/2016 05:36 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
I don't believe that the apparent irony of "freedom to license how you like" is addressed in those documents.
FSF is just more concerned about the user's freedom to control their own computing rather than the developer's freedom to license their code as they wish.
The former is a current problem for society while the latter isn't.
Kind Regards, Torsten
Charles Cossé wrote:
I get the feeling that the FSF communities hold an underlying belief that the freedom being espoused is somehow fundamental, as in a universal truth or moral oblication.
Software freedom is an ethical issue for the free software movement. This is one of the defining characteristics of this social movement and one of the things that distinguishes it from the younger, proprietor-friendly, right-wing business reactionary group called "open source" which talks about a developmental methodology in an attempt to speak more to business interests by way of developers.
But regardless of how hard-line of a stance each individual takes, isn't there some irony there? After all, "freedom" should also mean "freedom to license ones software however one pleases"?
You need to catch up on what discussions have been going on for the past few decades. This issue is well-covered in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html. In short, no, licensing is not a freedom it's a power.
You could also listen to any of the FSF representative's speeches given over the past 20+ years many of which are archived at https://audio-video.gnu.org/ in formats that favor free software.
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line? Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright?
There are distinctions to be made between generally-useful scientific knowledge, artistic & political expression, and information about personal lives. Many speeches at the location I've already pointed to cover this. In the context of this thread about cars, an ethical arrangement would be one where the car owner has complete corresponding source code to their car and that software is free software. This arrangement, had it existed for the owners of VWs and other makes, probably would have prevented the scandal where VW (and others) cheated environmental testing. So we know what power proprietary software allows automakers to get away with -- "proprietary software in cars is at least equally, if not more, dangerous" as Brad Kuhn said in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/08/13/does-not-kill.html.
We put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one type. It oseems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply everywhere, if it is real or universal, and not just to software.
You should reconsider your use of the word "closed" instead preferring "proprietary" or "non-free" because they're clearer and refer to software issues that existed well prior to open source. These terms also make no reference to open source, and that's appropriate because you're discussing the very thing that open source wants to avoid (software freedom) and distinguishing along a line that open source doesn't want to distinguish -- whether computer users are free to run, share, inspect, and modify the software on their computers or not.
Open source doesn't mind proprietary software because for them this issue comes down to a developmental methodology which means they might ask for permission to develop the software too, but if they don't get that permission they're fine endorsing whatever a proprietary software business says should be endorsed (see recent announcements of Microsoft's proprietary software running on GNU/Linux systems for recent examples). This is why proprietary software businesses like open source; putting a shine on preserving user subjugation is much like businesses that want to come off as environmentally-friendly but don't want to make any substantive changes in what they do so they engage in what's known as "greenwashing". "The appearance of doing the right thing is eventually more important than doing the right thing." as Brad Kuhn pointed out when discussing this similarity in his talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA calling open source "openwashing". Both the older https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html and newer https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html essay also address how denying a user's software freedom is entirely compatible with open source but not at all a part of the free software movement.
Unfortunately the only current source I know of for Kuhn's talk is YouTube. I recommend using "youtube-dl" to download and see it so you can avoid Google's proprietary code, tracking, and specify the format you want. http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_2/Thursday/Consi... used to work but appears down now.
Taking the case of elevator software, the elevator company would pay the developer then give-away their intellectual property.
Copyrights, patents, mask rights, and other grants of power exist. These various grants of power last for different times, cover different things, and cost different amounts of money to obtain and enforce, so there are more factors separating them than uniting them. Therefore mashing them together (as the term "intellectual property" does) doesn't convey that you understand what you're talking about. Consider adding https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty to your reading list.
Greetings, at some point I will become guilty of engaging in redundant conversation https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/edu-eu/2015-02/index.html. Initially in this thread I merely sought to agree that Uber were undermining not only other taxi drivers, but their own taxi drivers, as I believe that they would ultimately like to have completely driverless vehicles. And just a quick idea (O.T. digression) for anyone living in the San Francisco area (I know this is FSFE!) -- you could take out full-coverage insurance on your car and "stalking" those autonomous Uber vehicles with intent to cause them to collide with you (when unoccupied, of course) and thereby enjoy a little extra spending money. Just an idea ... but now back to the point(s).
I just refreshed my memory with many of the links you provided, J.B., as well as reading your blog, and my previous conversation with FSFE folks referenced above. It turns out that I don't suffer from any misunderstandings after all. Rather it's just a solid disagreement with Part "B" of FSF(E) doctrine, in which FSF advocates for the continued maintenance and availability of pure GNU/Linux systems (Part "A"), but then oversteps by applying an un-proveable philosophical value judgement which essentially says that "anything else is unjust" (Part "B").
Statements like "Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids" [1] https://www.gnu.org/education/ strike me as outrageous and counter-productive. I understand that what is meant there is merely computer science education and not education in general, but even that goes too far. If I want to put a new version of my FSF-registed https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/TuxMathScrabble education software online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to *use* the software to learn math.
GNU/Linux and FLOSS are both great and the world is a better place because of them. I will always be an advocate. But I cannot accept the second, supposedly altruistic, tenet of FSF(E) doctrine, which asserts that anything else is unjust / unethical /immoral. Those are un-proveable philosophical value statements that have nothing to do with software. They only serve to alienate people from FSF(E)'s cause. Not to mention that they unnecessarily complicate ones ability to understand the whole concept. It's essentially a religious statement that has no logical connection to a transparent operating system and associated software. Why cling to that so fervently for so long? It's the same as saying that we should stop eating organically grown food because there's a Window's system involved in the food chain.
What if life on earth was in danger and couldn't be saved because of FSF-induced gridlock, i.e. because in order to save life on earth we would have to do something "unethical / immoral", namely use non-free software ... at what point does it become acceptable? Why bother with the ethical arguments at all? Just advocate for the transparency and more people will join the cause.
Regards to all, Charles
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Charles Cossé wrote:
I get the feeling that the FSF communities hold an underlying belief that the freedom being espoused is somehow fundamental, as in a universal truth or moral oblication.
Software freedom is an ethical issue for the free software movement. This is one of the defining characteristics of this social movement and one of the things that distinguishes it from the younger, proprietor-friendly, right-wing business reactionary group called "open source" which talks about a developmental methodology in an attempt to speak more to business interests by way of developers.
But regardless of how hard-line of a stance each individual takes, isn't
there some irony there? After all, "freedom" should also mean "freedom to license ones software however one pleases"?
You need to catch up on what discussions have been going on for the past few decades. This issue is well-covered in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy /freedom-or-power.html. In short, no, licensing is not a freedom it's a power.
You could also listen to any of the FSF representative's speeches given over the past 20+ years many of which are archived at https://audio-video.gnu.org/ in formats that favor free software.
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line?
Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright?
There are distinctions to be made between generally-useful scientific knowledge, artistic & political expression, and information about personal lives. Many speeches at the location I've already pointed to cover this. In the context of this thread about cars, an ethical arrangement would be one where the car owner has complete corresponding source code to their car and that software is free software. This arrangement, had it existed for the owners of VWs and other makes, probably would have prevented the scandal where VW (and others) cheated environmental testing. So we know what power proprietary software allows automakers to get away with -- "proprietary software in cars is at least equally, if not more, dangerous" as Brad Kuhn said in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/08/13/does-not-kill.html.
We put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one
type. It oseems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply everywhere, if it is real or universal, and not just to software.
You should reconsider your use of the word "closed" instead preferring "proprietary" or "non-free" because they're clearer and refer to software issues that existed well prior to open source. These terms also make no reference to open source, and that's appropriate because you're discussing the very thing that open source wants to avoid (software freedom) and distinguishing along a line that open source doesn't want to distinguish -- whether computer users are free to run, share, inspect, and modify the software on their computers or not.
Open source doesn't mind proprietary software because for them this issue comes down to a developmental methodology which means they might ask for permission to develop the software too, but if they don't get that permission they're fine endorsing whatever a proprietary software business says should be endorsed (see recent announcements of Microsoft's proprietary software running on GNU/Linux systems for recent examples). This is why proprietary software businesses like open source; putting a shine on preserving user subjugation is much like businesses that want to come off as environmentally-friendly but don't want to make any substantive changes in what they do so they engage in what's known as "greenwashing". "The appearance of doing the right thing is eventually more important than doing the right thing." as Brad Kuhn pointed out when discussing this similarity in his talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA calling open source "openwashing". Both the older https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html and newer https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html essay also address how denying a user's software freedom is entirely compatible with open source but not at all a part of the free software movement.
Unfortunately the only current source I know of for Kuhn's talk is YouTube. I recommend using "youtube-dl" to download and see it so you can avoid Google's proprietary code, tracking, and specify the format you want. http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_ 2/Thursday/Considering_the_Future_of_Copyleft_How_Will_ The_Next_Generation_Perceive_GPL.webm used to work but appears down now.
Taking the case of elevator software, the elevator company would pay the
developer then give-away their intellectual property.
Copyrights, patents, mask rights, and other grants of power exist. These various grants of power last for different times, cover different things, and cost different amounts of money to obtain and enforce, so there are more factors separating them than uniting them. Therefore mashing them together (as the term "intellectual property" does) doesn't convey that you understand what you're talking about. Consider adding https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty to your reading list.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Charles Cossé wrote:
Statements like "Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids" [1] https://www.gnu.org/education/ strike me as outrageous and counter-productive.
A proprietary program's license is designed to offer no permission for its users to learn how that program works. Thus proprietary software forbids that education. What should strike you as outrageous is that when schools deploy proprietary software they are telling a student that their education ought not include understanding how their computer (including the software on it) works.
I understand that what is meant there is merely computer science education and not education in general, but even that goes too far.
I don't know how you came to understand that this is somehow restricted to "merely computer science education" nor do I see any such understanding conveyed in https://www.gnu.org/education/. Perhaps you were confused by the mention of reading and writing code.
Historically it was expected that anyone who wanted to scale up their effectiveness in using a program learned a little about how to make a computer repeatedly redo a desired action, hence many users (including non-technical users) would learn a little programming. This did not mean that they had anything to do with computer science education. RMS gave talks about the development of GNU Emacs in which he mentioned that a variant of Emacs written in Multics MacLisp by Bernie Greenberg "proved to be a great success — programming new editing commands was so convenient that even the secretaries in his office started learning how to use it. They used a manual someone had written which showed how to extend Emacs, but didn't say it was a programming. So the secretaries, who believed they couldn't do programming, weren't scared off. They read the manual, discovered they could do useful things and they learned to program." (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html)
If I want to put a new version of my FSF-registed https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/TuxMathScrabble education software online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to *use* the software to learn math.
Perhaps not (I can't say for sure without looking into the licenses of the program dependencies), but your intentions shouldn't limit what people can do with the software on their own computers. Also, the GNU GPL is not the only free software license. This license, when defended legally including court action if needed, does an excellent job of preserving a user's software freedom. But there are many other free software licenses from which to choose.
However if this new version were distributed as non-free software, users would not be able to trust that the program isn't doing something they don't want the program to do. Depending on the implementation details, the program might not even run when desired. The best way to ensure that programs do only what one wants them to do is to deal strictly in free software. Then any suspicious activity can be fully looked into and corrected.
It's the same as saying that we should stop eating organically grown food because there's a Window's system involved in the food chain.
No, it's not the same. It's worth remembering that the first programs Stallman wrote for GNU were written on and intended to be run on non-free OSes because non-free OSes were the only available systems at the time. He couldn't wait for a fully-free OS (such as what's listed in the FSF-approved free distros at https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html) to exist so he recognized that a free Unix-like OS is built from free programs and he set out replacing non-free programs with free replacement programs. We have a better situation today than Stallman did when he started GNU because we have fully-free operating systems on which to do our work.
What if life on earth was in danger and couldn't be saved because of FSF-induced gridlock, i.e. because in order to save life on earth we would have to do something "unethical / immoral", namely use non-free software ... at what point does it become acceptable? Why bother with the ethical arguments at all? Just advocate for the transparency and more people will join the cause.
Apparently the ethical arguments are quite compelling and foresee problems excellently, offering potent time-honored responses to modern-day problems. Listen to any of Eben Moglen's speeches and you're sure to hear him say "Stallman was there first" or words to that effect. Perhaps Stallman's most well-known instance of this prescience is his dystopic short story "The Right to Read". We see this coming to pass with DRM-riddled eBooks and TiVOized hardware.
How we treat other people is always a critical concern. As modern society depends more on the computer, how we treat other people via computers becomes increasingly important. These days, it's a life-or-death issue whether people can retain their privacy (the US government uses tracker, aka cell phone, location data to know where to send drone-launched bomb attacks, for example), the Snowden revelations put a fine point on how urgent it is that we help people conduct their lives with more privacy. We all ought to have the freedom to control our own computers and collaborate to improve our society. Quite a lot of what the FSF mentions in https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html doesn't just apply to schools.
The first part of your quote above is ridiculous but it contains a small germ of a sensible question within it, so I'll try to address that: is it ever ethical to run non-free software? RMS's talks address this directly -- yes, to reverse-engineer it. There's great value in providing interoperable free software replacements for non-free software. Reverse-engineering file formats, communication protocols, and reimplementing programs so they can provide the same functionality (even if they're not drop-in replacements) are all very valuable in the free world so that users can cooperate with other systems without losing their software freedom.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Charles Cossé wrote:
Statements like "Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids" [1] https://www.gnu.org/education/ strike me as outrageous and counter-productive.
A proprietary program's license is designed to offer no permission for its users to learn how that program works. Thus proprietary software forbids that education.
Not necessarily. If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect. As well, if the application is written as static Javascript then the complete source is available through the browser without even the need for publication.
What should strike you as outrageous is that when schools deploy proprietary software they are telling a student that their education ought not include understanding how their computer (including the software on it) works.
Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping. It is not for you to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous. Regarding your point, I believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not include" such understanding. If the goal of the educator is to get the job done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with such fine-grained philosophical subtleties.
I understand that what is meant there is merely computer science
education and not education in general, but even that goes too far.
I don't know how you came to understand that this is somehow restricted to "merely computer science education" nor do I see any such understanding conveyed in https://www.gnu.org/education/. Perhaps you were confused by the mention of reading and writing code.
You said it yourself, above, in the context of "ought not include such understanding ..."
If I want to put a new version of my FSF-registed
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/TuxMathScrabble education software online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to *use* the software to learn math.
Perhaps not (I can't say for sure without looking into the licenses of the program dependencies), but your intentions shouldn't limit what people can do with the software on their own computers.
Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". "My intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the user's "rights" exceed mine as the author? I'm willing to bet that there is at least one other person out there in the FSF(E) community that is willing to stand-up and publicly challenge that assertion. Anyone?
Also, the GNU GPL is not the only free software license. This license, when defended legally including court action if needed, does an excellent job of preserving a user's software freedom. But there are many other free software licenses from which to choose.
However if this new version were distributed as non-free software, users would not be able to trust that the program isn't doing something they don't want the program to do.
Again, not necessarily. If it is static Javascript with a proprietary license then please defend your position in that case.
Depending on the implementation details, the program might not even run when desired. The best way to ensure that programs do only what one wants them to do is to deal strictly in free software. Then any suspicious activity can be fully looked into and corrected.
It's the same as saying that we should stop eating organically grown
food because there's a Window's system involved in the food chain.
No, it's not the same. It's worth remembering that the first programs Stallman wrote for GNU were written on and intended to be run on non-free OSes because non-free OSes were the only available systems at the time. He couldn't wait for a fully-free OS (such as what's listed in the FSF-approved free distros at https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html) to exist so he recognized that a free Unix-like OS is built from free programs and he set out replacing non-free programs with free replacement programs. We have a better situation today than Stallman did when he started GNU because we have fully-free operating systems on which to do our work.
In a post-GNU/Linux world it is the same thing. FSF(E) is making an unproveable moral statement which alienates people from its mission. FSF(E) can still pursue the same goals and ideals without invoking unproveable moral arguments which have nothing to do with software and are a cop-out as far as reasons to embrace free software.
What if life on earth was in danger and couldn't be saved because of
FSF-induced gridlock, i.e. because in order to save life on earth we would have to do something "unethical / immoral", namely use non-free software ... at what point does it become acceptable? Why bother with the ethical arguments at all? Just advocate for the transparency and more people will join the cause.
Apparently the ethical arguments are quite compelling and foresee problems excellently, offering potent time-honored responses to modern-day problems.
They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling reasons. Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing these days. What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this? It's okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time.
Listen to any of Eben Moglen's speeches and you're sure to hear him say "Stallman was there first" or words to that effect. Perhaps Stallman's most well-known instance of this prescience is his dystopic short story "The Right to Read". We see this coming to pass with DRM-riddled eBooks and TiVOized hardware.
How we treat other people is always a critical concern. As modern society depends more on the computer, how we treat other people via computers becomes increasingly important. These days, it's a life-or-death issue whether people can retain their privacy (the US government uses tracker, aka cell phone, location data to know where to send drone-launched bomb attacks, for example), the Snowden revelations put a fine point on how urgent it is that we help people conduct their lives with more privacy. We all ought to have the freedom to control our own computers and collaborate to improve our society. Quite a lot of what the FSF mentions in https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html doesn't just apply to schools.
Snowden is a traitor to the United States. He was not privy to the information that he stole. He actively sought trouble and he found it by exploiting his colleagues. Regardless of the contents and revelations that followed.
The first part of your quote above is ridiculous
-1 for that. In fact, that is how scientists often test the validity of certain assertions -- namely by looking at asymptotic cases. If something is true in a moral / ethical / just sense, then accordingly it should be true in all cases, such as my hypothetical case above.
but it contains a small germ of a sensible question within it, so I'll try to address that: is it ever ethical to run non-free software? RMS's talks address this directly -- yes, to reverse-engineer it.
Or to save the planet in the hypothetical situation which you dismissed as "ridiculous". I would go much further, including to teach our kids via computer. Consider a 5 year old learning the alphabet via computer. You think it matters if the 5 year old can access the source code?
There's great value in providing interoperable free software replacements for non-free software. Reverse-engineering file formats, communication protocols, and reimplementing programs so they can provide the same functionality (even if they're not drop-in replacements) are all very valuable in the free world so that users can cooperate with other systems without losing their software freedom.
"Great value" and "moral obligation" are quite different. I urge FSF(E) members to consider modifying the FSF(E) doctrine to make it more realistic and inclusive.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Charles:
You actually believe that the user's "rights" exceed mine as the author? I'm willing to bet that there is at least one other person out there in the FSF(E) community that is willing to stand-up and publicly challenge that assertion. Anyone?
Here. As an individual, not representing any organization.
Still, as a user I have the right to not read (or run) what the author writes. Just like I willingly choose not to read some books because I know they are politically flawed and not to watch most of TV stuff because it has no value for me.
What I'd love to see is more consciousness about the potential dangers in running proprietary stuff. And not because people can and will modify the program: nobody does these days, because it's awfully difficult. It is not "as simple as possible" any more</rant>.
The worst danger in my opinion is lock-in and monopoly. Here and now, not 20-30-40 years ago. And to prvent that we should get as many allies as we can, even when we differ on the details. There's only one person that is perfectly aligned with my political view; working only with perfectly-aligned people makes each of us fight alone against the world.
I agree with J.B. about free software in education not being limited to computer science, but I also agree with Charles about the child learning the alphabet. The main problem, in my opinion, about software in schools is that teaching a proprietary tool (e.g. a CAD suite, or math software) is directing future purchases, helping current incumbents preventing competion -- worse, they usually count those "no charge" copies as direct expenses to detract taxes from real business. Education should never direct purchases (yes Charles, this "should" is very strong and ethical for me).
"Great value" and "moral obligation" are quite different. I urge FSF(E) members to consider modifying the FSF(E) doctrine to make it more realistic and inclusive.
We try to. And sometimes we fail in that.
/alessandro, speaking only for himself
Hi everyone,
as Alessandro, I would like to give some thoughts to this discussion, but they are my thoughts and not necessarily reflecting the opinion of neither the FSF or FSFE.
FSF(E) is making an unproveable moral statement which alienates people from its mission.
I believe it's difficult to talk about ethics and morals of free software, and I usually try to avoid doing so. If taking inspiration from consequentialist theory or virtue theory of ethics, the goal of ethical conduct is to realise a good life for people through their experiential well being or fulfillment of their desires.
Does free software fit into an ethical conduct? It certainly does for some, whose desires match the freedoms free software give you. For others, it may be experiential well being: perhaps the free software powering my elevator at home is much better than the proprietary one. But I would argue there are also many for whom using or developing proprietary software has a higher net benefit.
And therein lie one of the most important constraints: we must respect people's autonomy and treat everyone as being competent to make decisions on their own. This is a powerful norm in ethics, and we need good reasons to go against it. Going against this norm means telling someone our idea of what will realise a good life for them is morally sound, even if it goes against the wish of the individual.
There are situations where such a claim could be made. In public spending, for instance, especially as it relates to software which a government forces its citizens to use. There, the norm of autonomy no longer applies, because the user has no choice in the matter. But we could argue that it should, and this in itself is part of an argument for free software in public administration.
What organisations such as the FSFE can do, and does, is inform people and businesses about free software with respect for their autonomy. We can also help safeguard the ability to develop free software: making sure we have strong legal foundations backed by policies supportive of free software.
Ethics is tricky, and I don't feel completely competent discussing it. Ultimately, my goal is to foster free software and copyleft: to keep pushing companies and governments to move in the direction of free software. Where there are solid ethical arguments, I would not be afraid to use them, but if there are other arguments which get me to where I'm going, I would also use those because getting there is more important than the journey taken.
Put differently: let's be critical about the arguments we give about free software, ethical or otherwise, to make sure they can be scrutinized. And at each occasion, where one is different from the next, let's put forth those arguments which are most suitable to the situation and gets us faster towards our goal.
Sincerely,
Charles Cossé wrote on 19.12.2016 08:20:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, J.B. Nicholson <jbn@forestfield.org mailto:jbn@forestfield.org> wrote: Perhaps not (I can't say for sure without looking into the licenses of the program dependencies), but your intentions shouldn't limit what people can do with the software on their own computers.
Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". "My intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the user's "rights" exceed mine as the author? I'm willing to bet that there is at least one other person out there in the FSF(E) community that is willing to stand-up and publicly challenge that assertion. Anyone?
not me; I think the ethical issue is the main point about the free software movement: of course you have every /right/ to do what you like, but not all choices are ethically equal; I see the choice to publish non-free software as a choice that deliberately excludes friends, neighbors, fellow humans from taking full advantage of the software by exploiting the (rather recently created) so-called intellectual property laws, and, all else being equal, I see such restrictions to the free flow of information as morally wrong.
However, "all else being equal" rarely holds and I do not think that programming freedom and the free flow of information is the one and only guideline for our decisions. I think one has to balance this with other moral requirements (maybe in an utilitarian way) in any given situation.
I agree with you that these ethical stances are ultimately unprovable and to which you choose to adhere is a value decision that is not amenable to mathematical proof. However, one can try to derive such principles from (in turn unprovable) "ethical axioms" such as the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative, or utilitarian ("greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number") principles. What one, in my opinion, cannot do is to deny that it is a decision with ethical implications.
I do not think that FSF(E) should change their stance in tis regard: all of us are making a lot of moral compromises every day and one purpose of organizations like FSF(E) (or EFF, ai, Greenpeace) etc is to emphasize the moral implications of our choices, to hold up clearly the ethical principles and to make it (over time) easier to adhere to them.
best regards Geza (FSF(E) Fellow, not speaking on behalf of either organization)
Charles Cossé wrote:
Not necessarily. If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect.
Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of free software).
Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping. It is not for you to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous. Regarding your point, I believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not include" such understanding. If the goal of the educator is to get the job done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with such fine-grained philosophical subtleties.
Sounds like an educator that isn't doing their job very well. You are clearly trying to dismiss software freedom as a necessary factor in computer use when real-world examples keep pointing out the need for software freedom.
Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". "My intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the user's "rights" exceed mine as the author?
There's your problem: you're looking at software freedom as excessive or being somehow superior to the copyright holder's power instead of treating the program's users as equals in that they should all be free to develop the program in any way they wish.
They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling reasons. Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing these days. What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this? It's okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time.
I see no invocation of any gods in anything I've written on this thread and I'm unaware of any such invocation in the FSF's distributed materials.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Charles Cossé wrote:
Not necessarily. If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect.
Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of free software).
If you are going to quote me then please quote the relevant context, which was: On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
A proprietary program's license is designed to offer no permission for its
users to learn how that program works. Thus proprietary software forbids that education.
I was not referring to legalities, but responding to your claim that I was somehow forbidding them to learn how the program works. If you have the complete source in-hand then you have the ability to learn how it works. Your statement remains factually incorrect.
Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping. It is not for you
to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous. Regarding your point, I believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not include" such understanding. If the goal of the educator is to get the job done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with such fine-grained philosophical subtleties.
Sounds like an educator that isn't doing their job very well. You are clearly trying to dismiss software freedom as a necessary factor in computer use when real-world examples keep pointing out the need for software freedom.
Are there any educators reading this who would like to defend against the above criticism? Please explain what gives you the authority to level a blanket criticism against any and all educators who fail to ensure their students' right to re-release the source code of an application teaching them, say, how to spell 3 letter words, to use another asymptotic case. If something is a moral / ethical imperative then it stands for all cases, kindergartners included. I think I am clear that I am suggesting not to make such controversial claims because 1) you can't prove it, 2) not everyone agrees, and 3) some people will find it downright offensive, thereby making it more difficult to convince those you seek to enlist.
Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My
intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". "My intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the user's "rights" exceed mine as the author?
There's your problem: you're looking at software freedom as excessive or being somehow superior to the copyright holder's power instead of treating the program's users as equals in that they should all be free to develop the program in any way they wish.
If I write a 2 line program that prints "hello world" and don't license it under a FLOSS license, the user is still free to use it or not use it. According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral". Read the links you sent some posts back. FSF(E) makes no exclusion for asymptotic or trivial cases. As for you telling me what "my problem" is, I think you know how I feel about that by now.
They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling
reasons. Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing these days. What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this? It's okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time.
I see no invocation of any gods in anything I've written on this thread and I'm unaware of any such invocation in the FSF's distributed materials.
Well, at least you quoted the full context this time. And if you read it, you can see that I did not say that you invoked God. I did, however, compare your un-proveable ethics-based arguments to such.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/19/2016 02:14 PM, Charles Cossé wrote: <snip>
If I write a 2 line program that prints "hello world" and don't license it under a FLOSS license, the user is still free to use it or not use it. According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral". Read the links you sent some posts back. FSF(E) makes no exclusion for asymptotic or trivial cases.
<snip>
If I may jump in with a perspective from "across the pond", I would argue that the only case in which libre software takes on a moral imperative is when said software becomes critical for business or life in general; i.e when using the proprietary package becomes largely unavoidable or a choice is presented to either use the proprietary package or to e.g. stay out of a particular field of study or business. For many of these smaller cases, there is no moral imperative simply because one is not forcing other people to use the package in violation of their personal beliefs and views on libre software / software freedom in general.
What would handle this quite nicely is something we already have in place for trademarks; specifically the concept of a "genericized trademark". Just as trademarks can be handed into the public domain if they become the primary public descriptor for a specific class of products, it might work well if the source code / rights for an application are handed into the public domain once that application becomes completely unavoidable for business and/or life. The bar for this would obviously be set fairly high, but it would seem to protect against the situation we see now where only one specific, proprietary software package is supported for tasks like tax filings or even life support; cases where a true moral imperative can be widely agreed exists.
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) https://www.raptorengineering.com
Hi Charles, J.B.;
If you are going to quote me then please quote the relevant context, which was:
I will agree with Charles here. J.B., I believe you misread Charles' intention. Alternatively, you mean to say that only through the acts of sharing, and modifying a program, can you learn how it works.
According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral".
I would kindly ask you here, Charles, from refraining from lumping the FSF and FSFE together: while working towards the same goal (free software), we are distinctly different: organisationally, personally, financially, and otherwise. Our opinions often overlap, but not always.
If you find wording which would support your view that the FSFE would consider this "unjust" or "immoral" on the FSFE website, I would like to know them.
Dear Jonas,
Hello, and thank you for your thoughtful replies. When I refer to "unjust" etc., one recent place that I am taking my info from the RMS video that I watched, carefully, which is posted towards the end of J.B.'s blog https://digitalcitizen.info/. In that video he says "... other software puts the user under somebody else's unjust power". But I've seen numerous references in FSF documentation, at least, suggesting moral imperatives.
I understand (at least now) the separation between FSF and FSFE, but I assumed that RMS's own words would be a common denominator.
I noticed in your previous reply that you seemed reluctant to play the "ethical / moral" card, yourself, in some situations. My point is that the moral/ethical argument is used (at least by RMS) as a cornerstone for the whole doctrine, i.e. _all_ situations. Actually, my original point was merely that Uber doesn't even care about their own drivers. But it's been interesting to debate this ethics business, and I do prefer your personal position in the last paragraph of your previous post, which sounds much less rigid and more inclusive. And I'm essentially asking whether it wouldn't be better if FSF(E) doctrines were more like the personal opinion you offered.
Best regards, Charles
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Charles, J.B.;
If you are going to quote me then please quote the relevant context,
which
was:
I will agree with Charles here. J.B., I believe you misread Charles' intention. Alternatively, you mean to say that only through the acts of sharing, and modifying a program, can you learn how it works.
According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral".
I would kindly ask you here, Charles, from refraining from lumping the FSF and FSFE together: while working towards the same goal (free software), we are distinctly different: organisationally, personally, financially, and otherwise. Our opinions often overlap, but not always.
If you find wording which would support your view that the FSFE would consider this "unjust" or "immoral" on the FSFE website, I would like to know them.
-- Jonas Öberg, Executive Director Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
On 19 December 2016 at 21:12, Charles Cossé ccosse@gmail.com wrote:
But it's been interesting to debate this ethics business, and I do prefer your personal position in the last paragraph of your previous post, which sounds much less rigid and more inclusive. And I'm essentially asking whether it wouldn't be better if FSF(E) doctrines were more like the personal opinion you offered.
Historically, this is precisely why the OSI first formed in 1998, i.e. they liked the engineering methodology, but they felt that the fact that the Free Software Foundation was literally founded for purposes of social justice wasn't very saleable to the business world.
All of these is a pretty well-worn argument, and ethics in software design remains a current topic today, e.g. https://neveragain.tech - I would not expect them to stop at any point.
- d.
On 19 December 2016 at 21:50, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
design remains a current topic today, e.g. https://neveragain.tech - I
ah, that doesn't work (SSL certs on github pages problem) - try http://neveragain.tech
tl;dr you probably won't get ethics out of tech any time soon.
- d.
On Monday 19. December 2016 21.14.22 Charles Cossé wrote:
I was not referring to legalities, but responding to your claim that I was somehow forbidding them to learn how the program works. If you have the complete source in-hand then you have the ability to learn how it works. Your statement remains factually incorrect.
But perhaps the point is that learning how something works may not be sufficient. What if you want to apply that knowledge?
What if you want to modify a program teaching letters and words, for example, to teach a different alphabet or a different language than the one supported? Will the author let you do this or will they bring a case of copyright infringement? What if you ask the author to support those things and they refuse?
What if you want to write your own program to do the same thing because there aren't any others that might? Does the author then claim that you are infringing their copyright, or failing to prove that, do they threaten you with infringement of their "special patented techniques"?
Yes, it's great that humans are creative and can make things that educate and entertain others, and it is possible to learn things from using proprietary software. But proprietary software can have a corrosive effect, tempting people into acquiring it and then obliging them to continue doing business with companies that exercise the control in the relationship.
Is it ethical to bind educational institutions to purchasing policies that they cannot easily escape, and to see them having to spend money on things because people (teachers/parents/children/management) expect a particular piece of software and then insist on it, regardless of whether it remains the right choice?
Paul
Hi,
I'd love to know that even elevators run free software, though.
They do, to a point. Of course it varies, but I recently spoke to a company refurbishing old elevators. Their control software was built on Wind River Linux. Admittedly, there's a lot still to do until the entire stack is free software, but free software is getting into almost any industry.
What's important now though is to not let this slow us down: there's a lot still to do and we need to move the goalpost all the time to challenge everyone to release more and larger parts of their stacks as free software.
Hi,
On 12/16/2016 06:34 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
It's even worse than that: Uber's self-driving fleet
How about https://github.com/commaai/openpilot
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Carsten Agger <agger@modspil.dk mailto:agger@modspil.dk> wrote:
Yesterday, I received a LinkedIn email from a talent scout at Uber asking if I'd like to work on their core infrastructure.
I keep getting LinkedIn invitations. Everytime I tell the people that I have no intention of joining this network for obvious reasons here, they tell me that they never sent this invitation. In other words, LinkedIn misrepresents its customers.
Best, Theo
Theo,
It's an uphill battle.
If you want to join a professional network that does not spam and is made with 100% FOSS, i can recommend the Crypto-Currency Business Directory: http://cryptobiz.directory
-Joe
On 17 December 2016 at 15:36, Theo Schmidt sus2006@bluewin.ch wrote:
Hi,
On 12/16/2016 06:34 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
It's even worse than that: Uber's self-driving fleet
How about https://github.com/commaai/openpilot
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Carsten Agger <agger@modspil.dk
mailto:agger@modspil.dk> wrote:
Yesterday, I received a LinkedIn email from a talent scout at Uber asking if I'd like to work on their core infrastructure.I keep getting LinkedIn invitations. Everytime I tell the people that I have no intention of joining this network for obvious reasons here, they tell me that they never sent this invitation. In other words, LinkedIn misrepresents its customers.
Best, Theo
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
El 17 de diciembre de 2016 20:47:34 GMT+00:00, Joe Awni joe.awni@gmail.com escribió:
Theo,
It's an uphill battle.
If you want to join a professional network that does not spam and is made with 100% FOSS, i can recommend the Crypto-Currency Business Directory: http://cryptobiz.directory
Does that have a way to find and advertize for jobs? I could not find a clear location on the wevsite. I know of an SME in London who has trouble hiring block chain software engineera.
Changed subject in case anybody knows of a site for FS jobs. Maybe a scrapper site that collects from others.
-- -- Andres (he/him/his) Ham United Group Richmond Makerlabs
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Theo Schmidt sus2006@bluewin.ch wrote:
Hi,
On 12/16/2016 06:34 PM, Charles Cossé wrote:
It's even worse than that: Uber's self-driving fleet
How about https://github.com/commaai/openpilot
Cool, now Uber can take that Free Software and use it to put more people out of business.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Carsten Agger <agger@modspil.dk
mailto:agger@modspil.dk> wrote:
Yesterday, I received a LinkedIn email from a talent scout at Uber asking if I'd like to work on their core infrastructure.I keep getting LinkedIn invitations. Everytime I tell the people that I have no intention of joining this network for obvious reasons here, they tell me that they never sent this invitation. In other words, LinkedIn misrepresents its customers.
Best, Theo
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion