More Attempts To Undermine FLOSS

FLOSS is about Freedom, allowing the recipient of the software to examine the code, run it, modify it and to distribute it under the same terms. A move to put Free Software in the public domain undermines that. A monopolist can take public domain software, tweak it to be incompatible with Free Software that is in the public domain and use leverage to enslave users. Free Software needs copyright as a lingua franca for licensing so that no monopolist can hide the code and force millions into slavery. Public domain would be great if there were no evil people in the world trying to take advantage of people to complete their power-trip.

No good comes from monopoly in software. It’s an evil concept and Glyn Moody and others should be ashamed suggesting FLOSS surrender its only leverage to the monopolists. Even if all software were removed from the domain of copyright, the monopolists can still use onerous EULAs to extend their power and reduce the freedom of users. As long as software patents are allowed to exist, the FLOSS community would be insane to give up copyright.

Putting FLOSS in the public domain while allowing non-Free software to do what evil people want it to do is foolish to say the least.

Steve Ballmer said, in 2001, , “Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches

The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source”

Glynn Moody wrote, “As ever, choice and personal freedom are crucial. But I hope that people will think twice about introducing new licences, or even updating old ones. In particular, I hope that there will never be a GNU GPL version 4. Instead, we need to complete the revolution that Richard Stallman began nearly three decades ago by making free software truly free, placing it in the public domain, and severing the chains that still bind it to that three-hundred-year-old monopoly called copyright.
see Attribution and reputation – The H Open: News and Features.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to More Attempts To Undermine FLOSS

  1. notzed says:

    That was a strange article – because it’s missing the whole point of free software licenses. The licenses are there to protect the freedoms of the users, not the developers or the vendors. And they have nothing to do with popularity either.

    From the article it seems the paper deals exclusively with vendors and developers using software, so is simply not talking about the same thing.

  2. Hans Gruber says:

    I get why Schestowitz is pissed at Moody but what did you do that got you lumped in with ” Here are some articles that I humbly do not recommend because they are hinged on the idea that copyleft FUD is in fact true:”

    I get all my Linux Links there since it it by far the best daily Linux/FLOSS links

    I presume this is a mistake because your post in no way endorse Moody or Asay stance on public domain being the solution to GPL.

    You are 100% right about the code which is something they dont really cover.
    If you want to use my GPLed code and benefit from the work I did, all I ask in return is that you do the same.
    If public domain allows that, thats another thing.
    But PD does NOT do that.

    I understand that an Asay would take devs to be total morons, it must be a family trait:
    “. One is the fact that companies may take the code and enclose it, which he notes is unlikely to happen because doing so negates many of the unique benefits of free software”.

    Its unlikely to happen? Ahhh isnt that nice… he believes in Santi Claus!!!
    THATS it as far as Asay is concerned. They wouldnt do it because it doesnt suit their needs.
    Lets act like Apple and its dabbling in open source is all about the users and not about them and just them. Lets believe that they would take something and close it off because they wouldnt get the benefits of FOSS.

    And Moody is just as pathetic in his defence:
    >my previous column, free software has essentially >won, taking over most key computing sectors.

    No. No. No. Dont confuse free software and open source

    >Similarly, the move to “permissive” licences has >only been possible because of the success of >copyleft: the ideas behind collaborative creation >and contributing back to a project are now so >pervasive that we don’t require “strong” copyleft >licences to enforce them – it’s part of coders’ >mental DNA.

    I could spend an hour explaining all the holes in the logic but I like the fact that he agrees that the open source licenses success can be traced to copyleft success in getting people to contribute but that now its no longer needed without explaining what measures are in place in Public Domain IN CASE THEY ARE NEEDED.

    its like saying, there is no war going on now, so lets just throw all our armament in the garbage.
    But what if you do need it?

    neither Moody or Asay broach this topic and with the history of attacks against FLOSS i find it stunning that the answer is: get rid of GPL because people are nice now and wont do bad things.

    If this was my youngest, id sit him down and explain to him how the world really works and Im stunned taht Moody can be this naive.

    I sort of know where he is going with the latter part in the sense that even RMS would like a cleaner system to the copyright mess but while in theory what he suggests would be nice, there is nothing in place now that could protect user freedoms like the GPL does.

    yes, it would be nice to be able to go to a club and pick up a hot girl and have wall rattling sex with her afterwards with no condom. Theyre uncomfortable, unnatural and feels like your banging a Glad bag.
    Would I like to have unprotected sex with people I dont know or their medical histories?
    Sure, it would be great because condomless sex is better.
    Now, would I do this in 2013?
    Not on your (or my) life.
    now invent a spay on condom or other protection taht would be almost invisible and give me the same protection, and I will be first in line.
    But until that happens, condoms is still the safest way to go.

    Moody and Assay want you to give up condoms but havent found a solution to replace them except “girls take care of themselves these days and they wouldnt take any chances”.

    Same goes for GPL, if you can find something less complicated that offers users the same protection, Im all for it. But until you do, I see no reason to trust the goodness of heart of corporations.

Leave a Reply