this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)

Linux for Leftists

1167 readers
1 users here now

A Community for all leftists wanting to join and being part of a community that talks about Linux, Unix and the Free Software Community

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
AmeliaDaFloof@lemmygrad.ml
21
is the "free software" 4 freedoms definition too idealist? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 11 months ago by AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml to c/leftistunix@lemmygrad.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've been struggling to come up with words to describe my frustrations with the definition of free software and how it ignores some of the nastiest behaviours of corporations.

Stuff like EEE, repositories that are technically free but owned by a corporation and too big to fork (chromium), and other hazier real life conditions. Could there be a "free software but dialectical" definition that would be more useful?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I find that the classic "copyright wars", de Raadt vs Stallman/ BSD vs GPL arguments about freedom are really analogous to idealism vs materialism.

"Ours is the most Free", the idealists preach. "You can take our stuff and close it and sell it if you like! Yours carries authoritarian restrictions!".

And this is true, but those restrictions insist on the spread of freedom, in that you're forced to grant others the same freedom you enjoyed.

Look at how Microsoft took a lot of BSD code and profited from it, giving nothing back. Where is BSD now and where's GNU/Linux?

Often we just need to accept the paradox that sometimes freedom must be imposed and that maximalist, idealist freedom includes the freedom to exploit others and limit the fruits of their "freedom".

[–] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 11 months ago

This is 100% correct, and why no one should be using "permissive" / soft / weak copyleft licenses. All they do is permit corporations to take your work, extend it and then close it off, under liberal notions of freedom.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 11 months ago

Weirdly similar to the paradox of tolerance when put like that. i do completely agree.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 11 months ago

Ironically, a lot of corporations who began by extolling the virtues of "open source" are now changing over to source-available restricted licences. At this point, licenses like MIT seem to exist only for the small developers who hope to use their open source projects as a vehicle to jump onto the payroll of established companies.

[–] sevenapples@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 11 months ago

An Imgur link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.