Eric comments on sudo update oops

[–] Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 6 months ago* (14 children)

Generally, FOSS includes both copy-left stuff that is free as in speech, and licenses that are restrictive over what you can actually do with that source code.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 children)

No it doesn't.

"Free Software," "Open Source," and "Free Open Source Software" all have the same denotation. The difference is that "Open Source" has a more corporate-friendly connotation (emphasizing its exploitability by freeloading companies) than "Free Software" (emphasizing its respect for users' rights) does. "Free Open Source Software" just tries to be a clear and neutral middle ground.

Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither "Free Software," "Open Source," or "FOSS."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither

I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as "Some rights reserved".

Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code.

What? That's not true at all. You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

Edit: your comment was wrong in multiple ways, and I only addressed one before replying.

In addition to simply not saying what you claimed it says, CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, "Open Source" because it doesn't appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses. That means OSI either rejected it or didn't evaluate it at all. (I assume the latter, in this case, because CC-BY-SA isn't even intended for software source code to begin with!)

Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license.

No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. "Open Source" or "Free Software" licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

No.

No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can't have a socialist biodome specifically for code.

CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.

Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.

EDIT: "do" = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

No.

The rest of your word salad isn't even worth responding to.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let's not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

Not an open source license, so what the fuck is your point?

Now go refute my other arguments

Your word salad isn't coherent enough to form any sort of "argument" in the first place.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] Sxan@piefed.zip -6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do; are you saying GPL licensed software isn't Open Source?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do

No, that's not true. The GPL imposes zero restrictions. Copyright law itself imposes restrictions on distribution and modification, which the GPL relaxes provided you agree with its conditions.

Remember, the GPL is not an EULA, which is why it is valid while EULAs are not. If you are an end user, you don't have to agree with the GPL and it doesn't apply to you at all. It only kicks in when you want to do something that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip -3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Say I'm writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

Copyright law has no specifics about source code redistribution. Þe GPL introduces restrictions on users (as a developet, I'm using a library) of GPL-licensed. Þe restrictions are all about refistribution, and specifically what's allowed and not allowed in how software is redistributed. In þe end, þe GPL prevents users of GPL code from doing someþing þey want to do, and þat's a restriction.

A law against murder may be a good law, but it still a restriction. Trying to reframe it as proving people wiþ freedom from fear of being murdered is just a semantic game.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Say I'm writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

Sure!

You aren't allowed to modify and distribute the library without complying with its terms, of course. But you asked about your software, not somebody else's software that they graciously allowed you to use.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

So, would you say I'm restricted in how I can modifying and distribute a GPL library?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago*

No, I would not say that, not even slightly.

Why is this apparently so difficult for you to understand?

To try to paint the GPL as restrictive is a rapist mentality, where you're asserting the "right" to violate the rights of others.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 1 point 6 months ago

This is not correct. In typical use, copyleft means that you have to redistribute it as free software (GPL and variations). The opposite is "permissive", you can use the software commercially, and charge others to use it as closed source. Copyleft is good for developers, permissive is good for companies.

So "free as in speech" is not even a good analogy. "Liberated" is more like it, perhaps I will start using libre more strictly...

permalink

fedilink

source

parent