Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 (jeffcliff@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 01:26:43 JST Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧
   > @github
   > The AI-powered developer platform to build, scale, and deliver secure software.
   
   note nowhere in here do they even try to claim to be about open source anymore
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 01:26:42 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @jeffcliff I don't think github ever actually claimed to be about "open source", as github has always been proprietary.
     
     I believe microsoft has only made claims about the "openness" of certain extremely proprietary activities.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 17:54:41 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @jeffcliff If "where open source happens" was their primary selling point, then their claim wasn't that they were "open source", rather that their proprietary forge was where "open source" happened.
     
     Unfortunately, most people can't wrap their head around such sort of subtlety and on reading that statement would make the assumption that github is "open source".
     
     
     rms did write about 2 cases of such similar things happening in the past;
     Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a program is “open source software” without explicitly saying so. For example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the official definition, said this:
     
     As is common in the open source community, users of the … technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM…
     
     This did not actually say that the program was “open source,” but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and later adopted a new license which does make it free software and “open source”; but when that announcement was made, the program did not qualify as either one.)
     
     And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products:
     
     Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace.
     
     Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But Cygnus didn't actually say that these are “open source software,” they just made use of the term to give careless readers that impression.
     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
   • Embed this notice
     Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 (jeffcliff@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 17:54:42 JST Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki i distinctly remember in the early days they bragged about being the biggest open source forge as their primary selling point "where open source happens" or some shit
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 22:28:31 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @jeffcliff >both IBM and Cygnus did do a great deal of heavy lifting towards making free software or at least open source socially acceptable.
     There's a lot of assumptions unpack here.
     
     Free software was socially acceptable from the very start of computing, as people who were into computing shared software freely without hesitation.
     
     Unfortunately, eventually companies like IBM started to smell profit in the field of software and started making software proprietary and launching psyops that it was "wrong" to share software.
     
     MS-DOS and by extension microsoft windows only exists because IBM wanted a proprietary OS to go with their proprietary IBM PC's (the hardware was slightly less proprietary than usual, so the software needed to be extremely proprietary to "compensate" or something), so they got billy to get them an OS.
     
     As a result, when it came to making it "socially unacceptable" to share software, IBM played one of the biggest parts.
     
     Although IBM has released some free software, I don't believe they've done much at all to undo the damage they've done to the concept of socially sharing software.
     
     
     CyGNUs was completely different and was a business built on providing support for GNU in response to the then recent success of GNU.
     
     At the start Cygnus only supported free software and developed free software (i.e. eCos), but one day decided to start developing proprietary software.
     
     Cygnus and "open source" don't belong in the same sentence, as they were founded in 1989 and was taken over by red hat (merged) in 1999, while "open source" was only a thing since 1998.
     
     >both were clearly imperfect and engaged in the above, it is likely we'd be way further behind if we didn't have both
     Freedom wise, I think things would have been better if it wasn't for IBM, but worse without Cygnus.
     
     
     GNU did the heavy lifting in developing free software and spreading freedom, while buzzword enthusiasts did the heavy lifting of shilling the "open source" buzzword.
   • Embed this notice
     Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 (jeffcliff@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 22:28:32 JST Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki to be fair both IBM and Cygnus did do a great deal of heavy lifting towards making free software or at least open source socially acceptable. Although both were clearly imperfect and engaged in the above, it is likely we'd be way further behind if we didn't have both
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 23:22:45 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika It's quite sad how you can't help but to rewrite history.
     
     Free software predates shareware and freeware by ages, as those only came in after copyright law applied to software and denied the ability to redistribute without a license.
     
     shareware and freeware are a kind of proprietary license;
     - freeware only allows the mere execution of the software and forbids you from modifying or distributing the software (although many people distributed such undeterred anyway).
     - shareware similarly forbids modification, but allows redistribution, but it attempts to restrict even execution unless you pay (although some people modified shareware to remove sabotaging antifeatures, although in many cases shareware only contained a limited amount of functionality and you had to pay for the "full version" for all the functionality (i.e. the shareware version of DOOM only contained the first few levels)).
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 23:22:46 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @jeffcliff @Suiseiseki
     
     And shareware and freeware before those. Pretty Boy Hacker and Diskmuncher ][ converted a LOT of people to the idea that a hobbyist could do just as well if not better than the professionals.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 23:37:33 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     I'm a free market guy. Shareware was oftentimes a great way to get software you would not have otherwise had. Freeware was hobbyists. I never saw limited functionality versions until the 1990s.
     
     But throughout the 80s, we had a lot of good software from both of these sources, and "free software" was part of these. Nothing says you could not hand out source code with your shareware or freeware except that for most people disk space was still very limited.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 23:37:33 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika >I'm a free market guy.
     A situation where the government says that you can't share software without a license doesn't sound like a free market to me.
     
     >Nothing says you could not hand out source code with your shareware or freeware except that for most people disk space was still very limited.
     Merely because the source code is also available doesn't make software under a proprietary license not proprietary; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
     
     I don't believe disk space was the main reason why source code wasn't available, as even since when disk space became plentiful, very little freeware or shareware has included the source code.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 04-May-2024 20:46:00 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika >What is the law you refer to in the first paragraph?
     Copyright law forbids the sharing software unless you have a license to do so.
     
     Free software licenses like the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 etc do give you a license to share the software mind you.
     
     >In the 1980s, there was software available for mainframes... much of it free and in source code format.
     Yes, originally pretty much all software was free and provided in source code format and could be shared freely, as copyright didn't apply to software.
     
     Businesses then started to refuse to provide source code and then copyright law was modified to suddenly apply to software and businesses quickly exploited the created monopoly.
     
     >You can still distribute software this way without a license.
     Software without a license on is placed under the default "All Rights Reserved" terms by the government, which makes it proprietary and unable to be distributed (the one exception for this is if it has been validly placed into the public domain, which is very hard to do).
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Saturday, 04-May-2024 20:46:01 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     I can only speak for what things were like in the past.
     
     In the 1980s, there was software available for mainframes... much of it free and in source code format. You can still distribute software this way without a license.
     
     Almost all of that was funded by universities, with some from corporations and the military.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 04-May-2024 23:47:15 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika >This is a completely unstudied interpretation of the law.
     I have studied the laws in multiple countries and determined what they say - I don't try to interpret things.
     
     >Copyright law forbids nothing but establishes property rights.
     No, copyright law is not a form of property rights, as otherwise copyright would never expire, just like a house doesn't become public property after a set number of years after construction.
     
     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
     
     It is a temporary monopoly that is meant to benefit readers, alas it has been twisted.
     
     >Nothing stops you from putting software out there, which if it's free to download is considered an implicit right to redistribute.
     Yes, if you release the software publicly without restrictions on download, you have authorized people to download such and to run it but nothing else.
     
     Doing so may authorize people to send the download link on, but not distribute the software.
     
     >Unless someone complains, there is no enforcement.
     Having to rely on a lack of enforcement is a terrible way to do things.
     
     If you want people to distribute the software, you should use a license that authorizes that.
     
     >But that's not hard to do at all. State that the work is in the public domain and it effectively is if you are the copyright holder.
     That may be valid in some countries, but many it isn't, plus you've arguably given warranty for the software.
     
     You release software into the public domain properly, you'll need to use a dedication like; https://wpdd.info/
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Saturday, 04-May-2024 23:47:16 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     This is a completely unstudied interpretation of the law.
     
     Copyright law forbids nothing but establishes property rights.
     
     Nothing stops you from putting software out there, which if it's free to download is considered an implicit right to redistribute.
     
     Unless someone complains, there is no enforcement.
     
     However, you retain copyright unless you give it away (incl putting the work into the public domain).
     
     But that's not hard to do at all. State that the work is in the public domain and it effectively is if you are the copyright holder.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 00:48:25 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika Sure the laws are all garbage rhetoric, but that doesn't make them not apply.
     
     >You like releasing free software? Nothing is stopping you.
     The government makes this hard, but once you choose a free software license, nothing more stops you.
     
     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling
     
     
     Proprietary software is successful in carrying out cases of proprietary sabotage, but when it comes to cases of actual competition, free software always wins.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 00:48:26 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     This is political rhetoric, not reality.
     
     You like releasing free software? Nothing is stopping you.
     
     But commercial software is outcompeting you in many areas.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 02:16:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika Where did libreoffice come from? I didn't mention it.
     
     LibreOffice is in fact the best graphical office suite available due to how it's all free and how it support microsoft document formats.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 02:16:51 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     LibreOffice sucks ass.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 02:26:54 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     There are commercial products that do a great job, is the point. LibreOffice is a failure.
     
     And then we get into specialized software...
     
     Quality of software is dependent on the people that make it. You cannot fake that with procedure, even well-intentioned stuff like insisting on free software.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 05-May-2024 02:26:54 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika >then I'll go buy another copy of Word 2013
     You cannot buy proprietary software - you can only rent it.
     
     Please don't give microsoft more money, it is immoral to do so - at least go with an unauthorized copy (although it's better if you didn't use word at all).
     
     word 2013 will perform rather poorly when it comes to displaying .docx files made by newer versions of word - libreoffice might even do better.
     
     >There are commercial products that do a great job, is the point.
     I don't believe there's any office programs that has acceptable support for microsofts non-formats aside from office (even then, only between the same versions, support is bad between different versions) and libreoffice (plus one SaaSS that reuses libreoffices filehandling code).
     
     >LibreOffice is a failure.
     You keep claiming that, but it works on my machine.
     
     >Quality of software is dependent on the people that make it.
     Yes, the free software I use is developed by only the highest skilled software developers (free software developers) and I avoid stuff from malware authors.