undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanon138512y ago0 comments

It largely stalled because of the web. Lots of SV startups for example are using GPL'd code, but because they only provide web apps they don't have to release their code. Worse still those startups often think they are on the 'good' side of the free software debate because they use some open source code in their products and maybe even contribute a bit back.

In my opinion the FSF screwed up majorly by concentrating on local software and the GPL while ignoring the much greater danger of software as a service. The AGPL is too weak and the FSF never really pushed it. The GNU project have tried to create some online services/protocols themselves but they are a total joke (e.g. GNU Free Call).

0 comments

jjindev12y ago

But don't most people here, at HN, want that right to decide their own openness? I mean, does everyone here plan to do a web startup and then produce a tarball of [their] full work? A full DB API?

I understand that we all, or most of us, have contributed to free or open projects, but I thought the pure-souls, without a little "IP" one way or another, were very rare.

belorn12y ago

A common business model today is to threaten customers with lawsuit after the exchange of money for software has happened.

As a author, I want to decide if I can accept having my work used in the above mode. I think such threats can cause quite a bit of harm, and there are many notable cases where ordinary people has had their whole life physically hurt by it.

I can see how many developers want to decide for themselves if they are going to use the "threaten customers with lawsuit" model to earn a living. But it is no ones right to decide for me if they can use my work for it.

bad_user12y ago

IMHO, the fact that the GPL covers only distribution and not usage (i.e. the GPL is NOT an EULA), is the reason for why I consider it a free software license.

AGPL never took off because AGPL is not really free and should have never happened. Unfortunately the FSF is blinded by these so called "dangers" in their fight against proprietary stuff, totally ignoring that AGPL in practice is only used purely for marketing reasons in dual-licensing schemes, there are no communities around AGPL projects and OSI doesn't really give a shit. As a consequence, AGPL is now posturing as a free software / open source license.

> Worse still those startups often think they are on the 'good' side of the free software debate because they use some open source code in their products and maybe even contribute a bit back.

You're making it sound as if that's a bad thing.

The web is the most open distribution platform. The alternative to the web is not FSF's GNU, but rather the iTunes App Store, Google Play, Amazon's Appstore and the Windows Store. And compared to 15 years ago, the barrier to entry for kids wanting to experiment with building and distributing software is very low and the web in combination with open-source tools, libraries and platforms have made it possible. I also hate this holier-than-thou attitude.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse