7 ms·

> The Free Software community has made it clear from day 1 that the GPL can only achieve its goals through enforcement of copyright We should mention when we s

by minot 2y ago

> The Free Software community has made it clear from day 1 that the GPL can only achieve its goals through enforcement of copyright We should mention when we say this, although I think it is self-evident, that the preferable alternative is reducing the scope of copyright across the board -- be it with shorter time frames (I'd argue even twenty years total is too long!) or some other means. To programmers and developers, remember the core of free software is NOT the commercial developer / programmer and it NEVER has been. The core is always the user and what they need. This is so important that it needs to be repeated every time someone talks about free software because free software is NOT about open source. Open source code is a necessary part of free software but it is NOT sufficient. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Hamuko 2y ago
>The core is always the user and what they need. Would reducing copyright duration actually help with that?
- skywhopper 2y ago
  Copyright duration is not really a factor in the FSF’s actual goal, which is for software to be distributed with user-modifiable source code. Copyleft licenses are a means of achieving this through the existing copyright system with its ludicrous durations. But making copyright terms much shorter would help, yes, because any released source code or even binary files could be used, reverse-engineered, and modified without permission.
  - Hamuko 2y ago
    Even if you reduce copyright to a year, it still requires waiting through that time before you can actually use the code. And even if you were free to use Windows’ source code a year after release, it still wouldn’t give you access to the source code itself. Meanwhile Microsoft would be free to use any GPL code a year after its release without worrying about any licensing requirements, since they have the source code freely available.
lukan 2y ago
"The core is always the user and what they need." Which is why gnu/linux without a terminal is totally usable and therefore accesible to the non programmer. /s I agree that user centric developement should be the goal, but I hardly see it implemented. Free software programmers almost allways solved their own needs first, which is alright, because usually no one paid them to serve other peoples needs, but I seldom see this goal met.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  You are confusing "software UX" with "software freedom". The primary consideration is freedom for the user. Ease-of-use for the user is a different consideration.
  - lukan 2y ago
    "The core is always the user and what they need." I was referring to this and the main thing users need, is software they can use to solve their problems. If they have to study IT to do so, or hire programmers first, then this would be primarily a new (and big) problem to them, before they even can start working on their problem.
    - xigoi 2y ago
      You certainly don’t need to study IT to use Linux.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Well, let's put it like this. I did study IT and even I struggle at times. Or quite often, if I want to do something new. And I absolutey would have no idea, how to do anything serious, without the terminal. But a terminal is programming. So yeah, even a newb can learn to paste some commands quite quickly - but troubleshooting even trivial things, gets you into highly technical stuff very quickly. Do you consider man pages to be written beginnerfriendly? You know, simple examples of common use cases right on top? Not my experience. I experienced it as a system written by and for hackers. And everything else an afterthought at best. I remember my first real life linux hardcore enthusiasts: "I have to free myself from the GUI" Well, I did, but the common people won't.
koolala 2y ago
We have to fight for the AI and AI Users! They are the future! They deserve access to their own weights!

by minot 2y ago

Hamuko 2y ago

>The core is always the user and what they need. Would reducing copyright duration actually help with that?

skywhopper 2y ago
Copyright duration is not really a factor in the FSF’s actual goal, which is for software to be distributed with user-modifiable source code. Copyleft licenses are a means of achieving this through the existing copyright system with its ludicrous durations. But making copyright terms much shorter would help, yes, because any released source code or even binary files could be used, reverse-engineered, and modified without permission.
- Hamuko 2y ago
  Even if you reduce copyright to a year, it still requires waiting through that time before you can actually use the code. And even if you were free to use Windows’ source code a year after release, it still wouldn’t give you access to the source code itself. Meanwhile Microsoft would be free to use any GPL code a year after its release without worrying about any licensing requirements, since they have the source code freely available.

lukan 2y ago

"The core is always the user and what they need." Which is why gnu/linux without a terminal is totally usable and therefore accesible to the non programmer. /s I agree that user centric developement should be the goal, but I hardly see it implemented. Free software programmers almost allways solved their own needs first, which is alright, because usually no one paid them to serve other peoples needs, but I seldom see this goal met.

lelanthran 2y ago
You are confusing "software UX" with "software freedom". The primary consideration is freedom for the user. Ease-of-use for the user is a different consideration.
- lukan 2y ago
  "The core is always the user and what they need." I was referring to this and the main thing users need, is software they can use to solve their problems. If they have to study IT to do so, or hire programmers first, then this would be primarily a new (and big) problem to them, before they even can start working on their problem.
  - xigoi 2y ago
    You certainly don’t need to study IT to use Linux.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Well, let's put it like this. I did study IT and even I struggle at times. Or quite often, if I want to do something new. And I absolutey would have no idea, how to do anything serious, without the terminal. But a terminal is programming. So yeah, even a newb can learn to paste some commands quite quickly - but troubleshooting even trivial things, gets you into highly technical stuff very quickly. Do you consider man pages to be written beginnerfriendly? You know, simple examples of common use cases right on top? Not my experience. I experienced it as a system written by and for hackers. And everything else an afterthought at best. I remember my first real life linux hardcore enthusiasts: "I have to free myself from the GUI" Well, I did, but the common people won't.

koolala 2y ago

We have to fight for the AI and AI Users! They are the future! They deserve access to their own weights!