Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Anthony (abucci@buc.ci)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 19:07:57 JST Anthony
   This rsync thing has me thinking about the difference between the "free as in beer" model of free software and the "free as in freedom" model the FSF originally put forward. There are important differences, and it's meaningful when a project changes from one model to the other, which is one way to narrativize what's happened to rsync.
   
   I think "free as in beer" software is more appropriately called "Libertarian and Open Source Software", or LOSS. Among other things it involves no obligations on other people, and expects no obligations in return (*). But this means it's an everyone for themselves, anti-communitarian endeavor. We should be honest about this. We should also be honest when a project changes state from FOSS to LOSS, because that's a meaningful change, and actually is a loss in my view.
   
   I continue to believe that enthusiastic embrace of AI/LLM coding tools is a leading indicator of an impending FOSS→LOSS transition.
   
   It seems to me at least one driver of the uproar over rsync is that a bunch of people thought it was a FOSS project but it had, in a short period of time, converted into a LOSS project and the shock was jolting (understandably). As a FOSS project, rsync served a community function, leading people to depend on it, make assumptions about its longer-term stability, and so on. Those are reasonable expectations of a communitarian project. As a LOSS project, rsync is under no obligations to anyone and the maintainer(s) can change the software at any time, for any reason, at their discretion alone. It seems rsync is a LOSS.
   
   #tech #dev #software #SoftwareDevelopment #FOSS #freedom #rsync #AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI #LLMs
   
   (*) Putting aside whether this principle is consistently applied or hypocritical.
   
   • Embed this notice
     Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 19:07:56 JST Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)

     in reply to
     @abucci
     
     It's under the GPL v3. Which is a license that cannot be revoked.
     
     - If a new version is buggy, you can use the previous version.
     - If the current maintainers do a bad job, you can fork it.
     - If development goes inactive, you can fork it.
     - If you disagree with the trajectory of development, you can fork it.
     - If new versions start coming out under a proprietary license because every single non trivial contributor agrees to this (that's the only way under GPL) and thus it actually stops being free software going forward, YOU CAN STILL FORK IT (the last GPL version).
     
     Free software has a definition. Let's stick to it. Let's not confuse people by claiming that something has ceased to be free software, when it clearly is still free software, just because someone doesn't like some new version, or the recent work of the main maintainer who has thanklessly developed it for years and made it available to the entire world.
     
     I freaking love rsync and have like three daily automated scripts that run it. For a moment you really made me think it's gonna stop being available or something, until I went and checked the license!
     
     Thank GNU it's not going anywhere because it's GPL.
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 19:09:51 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
     @taylan @abucci Note that the latest version of rsync from the main developer is now proprietary software due to the inclusion of LLM-copied source code without the licensing information - too bad a copyright holder cannot violate their own license - but hopefully the other copyright holders of rsync step in and demand that violation of their license ceases.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 19:58:30 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
     @abucci @taylan Unless you have a license that grants the 4 freedoms; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms or the project is validly released into the public domain by the copyright holder(s) (and the software has not been rendered proprietary via a trademark or a patent), then it is not free software.
     
     What is happening to the rsync project is that the developer has turned the latest version into proprietary software, denying the user 3 of the 4 freedoms.
     
     The only solution to the problem is to keep using an old version, or fork the project from the last free version.
   • Embed this notice
     Anthony (abucci@buc.ci)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 19:58:31 JST Anthony

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @taylan@feministwiki.org This is one of the many reasons it is absurd to believe that "freedom" boils down to a document, license or otherwise. If you believe the license is what matters then you have no mental resources to even understand what's happening with a project like rsync let alone assess whether it's good or whether it ought to be different. None of what I'm saying is in any way new or complicated but a bunch of folks are struggling with it just the same.
     
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 20:06:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
     • Kirils Solovjovs
     @k @abucci @taylan LLM's cannot generate text - all those can do is copy input text and combinations thereof.
     
     I see no reason why the original copyright on the copied text wouldn't be under the original license (why would passing it through a LLM change anything?).
     
     If it's not subject to copyright, and the user doesn't have a certificate, or at least a statement that x parts are in the public domain, then how can the user confidently exercise the 4 freedoms, knowing that some company won't come along and sue them for copyright infringement (after all, if a company realizes that if parts of the source code of their proprietary software has been copied into another program, the company will sue)?
   • Embed this notice
     Kirils Solovjovs (k@chaos.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 20:06:38 JST Kirils Solovjovs

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)

     @Suiseiseki @abucci @taylan LLM generated text is not and cannot be subject to copyright thus inclusion or non-inclusion of that is irrelevant to licensing consideration.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 22:55:38 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
     @abucci @taylan GNU/Jihad against "FOSS" infidelity!
     
     Trying to be neutral between the corporate bootlicking of "open source" and the freedom of free software is just sad.
     
     The only appropriate response to a program that was free software, being rendered proprietary, is to fork it back into free software.
     
     At the moment, my time is being wasted, as I inadvertently installed the proprietary version of rsync, breaking my servers, as unsurprisingly proprietary slopware does not work!
     
     I shall fix the problem with fury.
   • Embed this notice
     Anthony (abucci@buc.ci)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 22:55:39 JST Anthony

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @taylan@feministwiki.org
     What is happening to the rsync project is that the developer has turned the latest version into proprietary software, denying the user 3 of the 4 freedoms.
     Again I will repeat: documents are not "freedom".
     
     The only solution to the problem is to keep using an old version, or fork the project from the last free version.
     That is not the only solution, and I view the reductive thinking implicit in this as problematic. This is not meant to be mean, but I really think FOSS went off the rails when it stopped understanding itself as a political project, and where we are today reflects a serious loss of vision. Like, we have a tremendously important, widely used piece of software that permeates Linux distributions and is probably relied on by many millions of people (some of whom are not even aware they rely on it!) and our only response to a single individual claiming ownership over it is "fork it"? That's it? That's our only move? Frankly that's pathetic.