Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 23:21:44 JST CyberSpook??

   The difference between Open Source and libre software is actually quite clear. Open Source is about the source, libre software is about the binaries. Consider these statements:

   • “Is there an open-source version of this program?”
   • “Can I easily aquire (for free or for a named price), run, modify and share original or modified binaries and their source code however I want?”

   The second one excludes Tivoization, DRM and proprietary blobs and binaries. Android is Open Source. But it isn’t libre. Replicant is. GNU/Linux-libre is.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 23:21:42 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     I find this distinction of focus between OS and FS interesting, but a little off. though the definitions are essentially equivalent, underlying values aren't. while FS has always been about freedom for users, because users deserve to control their computing as a human right, OSS shifted that to freedom for developers, which makes sense in their rebranding to appeal to corporations, even at the expense of users' freedoms. for OSS, users' freedoms matter to the extent that users might become contributing developers. so I don't think it's about binaries vs sources, it's about whose freedoms are on focus. as a counter-example to the binary vs source distinction, even a small source code fragment is a valuable piece of free software.
     that said, it's true that OSS cares less than FS about binary-only components, but that's not because of binary vs source, it's because redistributing a blob is not a problem for a developer, while it is a killer for a freedom-seeking user. (I acknowledge developers are highly inconvenienced when having to interact with black-box blobs; these days, most driver developers that interact with firmware blobs have access to both, they just aren't allowed to share details on the blobs)
     the same difference of focus applies to other freedom-depriving techniques that harm users but not developers, such as tivoization. technically, tivoized software does not meet the OSS def, but OSSers don't care because it doesn't hurt developers.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 23:34:17 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     another problematic point is that Android at most as OSS-compliant as the kernel it uses. Linux contains blobs, so it's not OSS, therefore Android isn't either. but OSSers tolerate blobs, so they pretend and misrepresent Linux and Android as OSS. but the difference is not in that they're OSS and not FS (they're neither), it's in the duplicity of bundling blobs and misrepresenting the whole as OSS.
     
     there's a deeper issue related with this difference in focus, that leads to a difference of attitude: pursuit of freedom for all users, by resisting the technological subjugation and overthrowing the abusers to liberate the cyberspace, vs pursuit of economical and efficient exploitation of software, by externalizing development costs and accepting third-party contributions, when that's profitable, while legitimizing the power to subjugate users when that's profitable.
     
     this difference in underlying values also drives the preference for either copyleft or pushover licenses.
     https://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/pub/against-software-tyranny.en.html
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 23:46:18 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     finally, a nit: GNU/Linux-libre refers to a category of operating systems and distributions thereof, that use GNU's liberated version of Linux (named GNU Linux-libre) as the kernel underneath the GNU operating system's userland.
     like any distribution of GNU, the fact that it uses GNU as the operating system does not in itself guarantee that it is Free Software: it is unfortunately common for GNU distributions to bundle nonfree, user-subjugating components, from firmware to applications. this is not quite so common for distributions that reject the nonfree parts of Linux and use GNU Linux-libre instead, so GNU/Linux-libre (the combination of GNU userland with GNU Linux-libre kernel) does indeed suggest the distro is likely wholly (holy? :-) free, but it can't really be taken for granted.
     
     I *think* what you meant in your post was to refer to the kernel only; whose distribution does indeed aim to be entirely Free Software, as that's its raison d'être. but to refer to the kernel alone, the slash shouldn't be there: that modified kernel can be referred as Linux-libre or, as we've more recently become part of the GNU project, GNU Linux-libre. here, GNU is used as a qualifier, that in other packages serves to distinguish from other suppliers of programs with similar technical purposes (think GNU libc vs other C libraries, or GNU GPL vs other licenses for the general public), unlike GNU/Linux, where two separate projects combine to form a whole operating system
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Nov-2022 00:28:29 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     …so I don’t think it’s about binaries vs sources, it’s about whose freedoms are on focus…

     I’m aware of this. What I meant is that libre software advocates care about whether the binaries respect the user’s four freedoms while the Open Source advocates are concerned only about the sources being available to share and modify. It’s precisely because the Open-Source advocates don’t care about the binaries respecting software freedom that they allow malicious features in the binaries or do not release their modified versions’ sources for commercial gain. We have seen it with Tivo and Google locking up users’ devices and many companies like Sony or Nintendo taking libre software, modifying it and never contributing back.

     The binaries are a major component of software and thus in order to be considered libre software they must respect user freedom. It doesn’t matter that they are licensed under a libre software license if they do not guarantee user freedom anyway.

     Alexandre Oliva likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Nov-2022 00:32:20 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     *nod*, OSS is very much about the so-called "open-source effect" that attracts contributions. having the software packaged and offered to users in a way that doesn't allow local improvements, for example, is somewhat detrimental but not impeditive of users' becoming contributors, so it fits the OSS mindframe, even if it hurts users.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Nov-2022 00:34:00 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva
     No, I meant GNU/Linux-libre. True, there may be some non-libre software in some distro but so far I haven't seen one, all GNU/Linux-libre distro developers are committed to software freedom.
     Alexandre Oliva likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     CyberSpook?? (cyberspook@soc.redeyes.site)'s status on Wednesday, 16-Nov-2022 00:34:00 JST CyberSpook??

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva
     @lxo Honestly, someone deliberately putting proprietary components into a GNU/Linux-libre distribution would be… weird.
     Alexandre Oliva likes this.