Re: [edu-eu] FWB: Foss with benefits

[Charles Cossé]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley <address@hidden> wrote:

On Friday 06 February 2015 12:42:15 Charles Cossé wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley <
>
> address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Charles Cossé wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > In light of points made in this conversation I spent some time reviewing
> > > FSF literature and definitions.   At the end of "Why Open Source misses
> >
> > the
> >
> > > point of Free Software"
> > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>
> >
> > there is
> >
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an
> > >
> > > > activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the activity is good in and
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side.
> >
> > (src
> >
> > > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>)
> > >
> > > At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified my text
> > > throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software", so as
> >
> > not
> >
> > > to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the project.
> >
> > Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meanings of
> > 'free'
> > the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to RMS) Free
> > Libre Open Source Software.
>
> The thing is, there are 2+ audiences reading the pages in question, and I'm
> almost certain that most people will be more confused by anything but
> simple term "open source" ... so how about this:  I'll use the term
> "GPLv3'd" throughout, and modify my templates so that I can add a link
> (current limitation of my own making) ... and link to a full-on explanation
> of the differences in terminology (my explanation, and further links to FSF
> pages).  I think that would satisfy pretty much everything ... do you agree?

FLOSS, the acronym for Free Libre Open Source Software, has been established
for 14 years, seems to be relatively well known and is indexed on
Wikipedia[1].  Which points out it addresses more that just the English
language.  FLOSS is the advertised _preference_, if you want to do something
different then to my mind  "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software" is the
better of your suggestions.

Well, i don't know what i want to do anymore, but i will convince myself to use terminology acceptable to FSF, because i want to work with FSF and i do share much in common.   Quick digression:  I am 49 now, and I recall when the term FLOSS suddenly hit the stage ... and nobody explained to me where it came from ... but I was already developing FLOSS/GPL'd education software at that time ... and like most/many "old dogs" i didn't see the need for a "new trick".  Especially because it doesn't sound very nice in my ear ... much like when JPython had to change names to "Jython" ... yuk yuk and yuk again!  I still refer to it as JPython and "jython" in parentheses if necessary. 

 

This is because in practice a 'open source' on its own effectively means 'needs
licensing and blob checking' to the free software community.  Some devs do
things like say 'open source (GPL)' and then include e.g. the proprietary code
to access Spotify in their offering.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software#FLOSS

> > > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today:  The notions of
> > > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often.  Personally, I don't
> > > believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe.   That
> > > has
> > > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my
> > > cosmology.   So FSF philosophy alienates me long before considerations
> > > of
> > > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not.  That argument is
> > > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with software.
> >
> > To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recommend to you.  If you
> > believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths) do
> > you
> > propose to cook and eat your own children at some point?
>
> Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wrong does not imply
> that I would therefore propose such a thing.   People can refrain from such
> things on their own, for obvious reasons, without the need to invoke
> unprovable philosophical arguments.

You needed one iteration more.  You've missed your 'for obvious reasons'
implicitly acknowledges a fundamental _human_ judgement of something as
wrong does it not?  Therefore within the scope of a human existence it is
reasonable to contend there are other fundamental rights and wrongs.

Ummm ... "fundamental" and "human" ... nothing human is fundamental.  But it's okay, i'm not going to eat children.  Just torture them with software :)

 

I appreciate YMMV, but since you can expect most of us here to believe in
fundamental human rights because we're advocating new ones (myself included)
you can also expect us not to agree with the contention that there is no such
beast.

>
> > > "Education <https://www.gnu.org/education/>" is at the core of FSF's
> > > mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education that FSF is
> > > referring to, as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids
> >
> > education.  (
> >
> > > > src <https://www.gnu.org/education/>)
> > >
> > > If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-listed game
> > > TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't
> > > "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to
> > > *use*. In fact, it's _javascript_, so Computer Science students can even
> > > still read the code and learn.
> >
> > There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned from it.
>
> I don't buy that in this case.  If it's my creation and I want people to
> use what they learn from studying it, but just don't GPL it, then there are
> no legal impediments.

Unless you do the legal paperwork (e.g. a GPL license) then they are reliant
on you not changing your mind, nor anyone (say a Patent Troll) suing you and
recouping the legal rights in your works as compensation or a bunch of hard
headed attorneys in charge of your estate when you pass away deciding
differently.

If you put non-GPL'd code on the internet that discloses that 12x12=144 and I take my information from that, then you can sue me?  I think I'll go pro-sé for the first couple of those hearings ... and same goes for some basic piece of code ... "hello world" for example.  I don't know ... let's not argue this point.
 

So please continue to give them their GPL rights.

I'm sure people are weary, but objection! The rights are not "theirs" apriori ... not until I give the rights to them.  I work hard to gain a competitive advantage in the job market, not to just give-away the knowledge that sets me apart.  The moment I jot-down an idea somebody else does not suddenly have a "(fundamental) right" to it. 

 

>
> Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details of the
>
> > relevant laws.
>
> I'm gonna save my eyesight for something else ... but I believe you that
> the legalese is out there.
>
> > Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights not lack
> > of
> > encumbrance.  You have made a common mistaken conflation of the two.
>
> I am talking about liberty/rights ... reading the above I don't see
> anything related to a "lack of encumbrance" ... what / who's encumbrance?

The phrasing was borrowed from the OED.  In this case just because the kids
are able (aka free as in unrestricted/unencumbered) to read and learn from the
code because it is _javascript_ does not mean [because of the the previous
point] they have their software freedom rights guaranteed as per GPLv3 and are
therefore guaranteed to be able to use their knowledge.

So you are saying that everyone has a fundamental human right to everything, regardless of the GPL, but the GPL makes it clear that the author agrees with that position in case of lawyers? 

In conclusion, if this is _this_ hard for me to understand (and accept) ... how can we expect someone entirely unfamiliar with such intricacies to even care?   Eating children, lawyers, thought police ... sounds like "Nightmare on (Free) Software Street".  Please go easy on me if you reply :)  And thanks for the continued thought-provoking discussion --

Charles

 

Leny

_______________________________________________
European "Free Software in Education" mailing list

https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu