Thoughts on a new phone keyboard from an organization that is making a convincing case we need to rethink our discussion around FOSS and self-hosting.

A pretty interesting take, and an interesting discussion about what it means to be open source. Is there room for a trusted space between open source and closed corporate software?

  • mke@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    3 months ago

    I might not be the best person to explain this, but I believe you are, in fact, missing a bit of context.

    Outside of software spaces the discussion around copyright seems so much more nuanced.

    Inside software spaces, specific needs beget specific discussions. They are as nuanced as they need to be.

    Did you know Creative Commons themselves recommend against using CC licenses for software?

    what is the insistence in the free software community for what seems like total license purity?

    The software world, and open source in particular, has historically had a lot of complex and frustrating moments due to licenses and the misaligned interactions of volunteers and companies. This probably leads many people to strongly advocate for what they believe would’ve helped in the past, and may help in the future.

    I even see software engineers arguing that “everyone” should use Apache or MIT and not the other, which is somehow bad for the FOSS community.

    I won’t get into whether everyone should use Apache or MIT—which aren’t considered copyleft, I think—but it’s also important to remember that even inside software spaces, people will often hold different and sometimes even conflicting views regarding ethical/ideological matters. They can also be just straight up wrong due to lack of knowledge, experience, misunderstandings, etc. That includes me, by the way!

    I hope that helped. I can point more resources later, if you want.

      • mke@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        4 months ago

        Well, that’s wonderful to hear!

        If you’re wondering what sort of issue being careless with licenses can cause, see the (in)famous case of Tivoization. GPL 3 was written partly to solve issues like this.

        The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
        Wikipedia

        Note how issue here is still subjective. Linux stays on GPL 2 and the people in charge are largely uninterested in planning a path forwards, or outright refuse to even consider it.

        For a more recent example of how community/contributors and owner/company interest misalignment can make a huge mess, see the consequences of HashiCorp changing the Terraform license from MPL to BUSL. Relevant facts I’d like to note:

        • This caused a large split in the community and with HC (“drama”).
        • This was only possible due to their CLA (Contributor License Agreement) requirement for contributors.
        • This eventually resulted in the birth of OpenTofu, a fork of Terraform managed by the Linux Foundation.

        Or, for a slightly funny case:

        A while back I saw a project on GitHub licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. The developer was considering writing a guide for contributors, even though I’m pretty sure you can’t fork and modify it to open a PR (popular way to offer contributions), because that’d break the ND clause (sharing derivatives). Were people supposed to e-mail patches straight to the developer? Who knows! There are people who are into that, such as some Linux Kernel folks.

        And finally, here’s what I thought was a very interesting take on what “free” means when talking about software licenses, touching upon obligations, rights and copyleft.

        I’m trying to avoid opining too much, even though I can’t help it and, really, it’s inevitable. I hope these serve as entry points for further research, and that they help you form your own perspective on all this. And if you do happen to end up agreeing with me in the end… well, I obviously won’t complain :^)