this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

17959 readers
23 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OneRedFox 9 points 4 months ago
  1. GitHub, and to a lesser extent GitLab. These platforms commodify the FOSS community and minimize the social aspects that matter -- people over stars. They are proprietary (or open core) and consequently encourage a consumption culture with respect to FOSS: users consume GitHub, rather than participating in it; and this culture fans out to the broader culture associated with projects and people that work with it.

Yes, though I like stars as a feature. Forgejo is just as good, so use that instead; I also hear that they're working on adding federation support, so it'll work like the Fediverse at some point.

  1. Open washing, which is to say the proliferation of licenses that look FOSS if you squint but don't work if you look closer, and practices related to these licenses. Here we have big players like Elastic, Redis, MongoDB, and numerous smaller cases as well. The practice of building off of the lavish advantages of being in the FOSS ecosystem, then pulling the rug and seeking exclusive commercial monopolization of the end result.

Yes. The GPL is still king in my book, but less protective licenses have flourished after corporations conceded the superiority of our development model and encroached on our space.

To address this we need to better educate people on how money and free software can co-exist in a way which does not threaten FOSS, and for people to learn and grok the social and economic dynamics of free software. The commercialization of FOSS is not a bad thing -- so long as the critical provisions that all users are equally entitled to share that wealth and capitalize on it on equal terms is upheld.

Yes.

  1. Discord. This is another proprietary platform and many of the same arguments regarding GitHub apply here. It's an incredibly popular platform, and it's no surprise to find it landing on our shores. However, it is especially toxic for FOSS in many respects: it seeks legal action to prevent anyone from attempting to build software on top of it. It's a walled garden: Discord is an incredibly exclusionary platform which has countless accessibility issues for the disabled, poor, and many others.

Yes, the FOSS community settling there is just baffling when alternatives exist and could use the attention and polish.

It's also exclusionary, and even unsafe, for many other marginalized participants. Many Discord servers are infested with far right recruitment and campaigns of hate and harassment. Many harassment campaigns are launched from Discord and racist, sexist, and queerphobic sentiments go unpoliced. It's an issue with the platform, which retains ultimate control and refuses to use it to moderate this behavior, and with the culture, who develop small monarchies where these problems go unanswered.

Yes, but that's also going to be the case on any FOSS alternative that attracts attention, so not sure why he's singling out Discord here; this is especially true if it's a decentralized solution, where the chuds can host their own instances. The problem here is lackluster content moderation and not the platform itself; the tools exist---they just need to be used.

Worst of all, it's really good. It's simply outcompeted the FOSS market. This isn't like GitHub, where the alternatives are equally good or better on technical merits. To solve Discord we need to both take the approach of committing our own projects to free platforms, but also investing in our free chat platforms to make them even remotely competitive with Discord.

Yes it did, lol. Matrix is the most viable alternative at this time, but the jank is pretty noticeable. That being said, it still has millions of users so it seems to be in "good enough" territory, especially for tech nerds. Just gotta give it some polish.

  1. Lack of diversity in FOSS. Yes, I mean the culture war sort, but also others besides. Most of the people reading this post still fit the mold: the relatively affluent white male cishet computer science major. We live in a time of struggle and if we don't foster solidarity with other political movements it's going to break down our doors sooner or later. We need different perspectives and backgrounds among our peers and leaders, and so far they're mostly relegated to users if even that.

We need to deal with bigotry. In particular we need to acknowledge the quiet sort, especially sexism and the behavior of problematic men in our communities. For all of our advances in other domains (in spite of the loud pushback against these advances), sexism remains an important flaw in the FOSS community.

Always a good idea.

Moreover, we need more people than just programmers. You know why we don't have an answer to Discord? A big part of it is that we don't have people doing visual design, translations, marketing, etc. Learn about people who differ from you and your expectations: their struggles, their victories, and their needs and what's important to them. Become a student of the other, and take your skills to your leadership and moderation roles, to make safer and more inviting spaces.

I've been saying this for like 10 years. People don't seem to design UIs/do marketing for fun though in the same way that we program for fun, so not sure if there's actual people to pull into our projects here, but we do need this. Maybe we should crowdfund hiring designers.

  1. The Free Software Foundation.

The one thing all of these issues have in common is that the FSF has no answers for them. The EUPL and MPL are doing a better job of facilitating copyleft than the GPL family. Savannah isn't a match for Codeberg, let alone GitHub. Most egregiously, the FSF has utterly failed to address diversity and social issues, especially sexism, and with RMS's position restored and maintained at the helm that is never going to change.

The FSF is dead, but its message cannot die. Free software is the philosophical superior of open source, and its lost a lot of ground due to the FSF's negligence and incompetence that we must recover. We need to underscore the political and philosophical meaning of free software independent of them and reclaim our movement so it can succeed without them.

I'm not convinced that the FSF is still culturally relevant in the FOSS ecosystem outside of Stallman memes; they fell off pretty hard even before Stallman got cancelled for being a neckbeard. I agree that the FSF's message needs to persist, but I think the problem here is that corporations have encroached on our space and they're better drivers of inertia since they have more resources to funnel into this stuff.

The way we need to do this is through decentralization and solidarity. We don't need to restore a heiarchical vision of the movement, instead we need to foster a distributed culture of mentorship in not only our techniques and practices but also in our values, our philosophy, and our culture. Stand up to be a leader, to empower burgeoning leaders around you, and to take personal responsibility for the issues enumerated in this thread.

I don't think that's going to be enough to solve the problem here. Tech companies need legislation to reign in their power and influence, especially big tech since they seem to have accumulated so much that it's not realistically feasible to compete with them anymore.

[–] TehPers 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Some thoughts on the comments on Discord:

I can understand most of the arguments against Discord, and there are some problematic communies on it of course, but I'm not sure I understand how using Discord over an alternative puts someone more at risk of exposure to those communities. People are free to join and leave servers at will, so is the issue that these servers built around FOSS projects have toxic communities? If so, how would being on any other platform solve this?

Speaking from experience, just about all the servers I'm in have some kind of "no politics" rule, a very inclusive "be nice" rule, and a pronoun selector. Maybe it's just the servers I join, but hate speech gets people banned pretty quickly.

Anyway, there are plenty of arguments that can be made about discoverability, lack of control, privacy, and the non-FOSS nature of the platform to justify its presence on that list.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

and a pronoun selector.

Which is sort of silly because Discord profiles themselves have a place for pronouns and you can customize them per server (without needing to pay for anything unlike other per-server profile customizations). So, if anything, that shows that these servers are trying to be inclusive.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Just this morning I thought to myself, what software does the FSF have as a flagship and its basically GIMP. GIMP which when asked about an Android version a year or so ago, said they couldn't do and they've made no movement in being able to do it. It's sad that their relevancy in tomorrow's world will be limited.

[–] leopold@lemmy.kde.social 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Huh? How did you narrow it down to just GIMP? Are you excluding all non-GUI software or something? GUI has never been a big focus for GNU (which I assume is what you're referring to when you say FSF), though they do have a couple of projects like GIMP and GNUCash. Most notably as far as GUI is concerned, they instigated the GNOME project, though they later split off. But yeah, they still maintain extremely important tools, especially for developers and UNIX systems, such as glibc, coreutils, gcc, emacs, gdb, make, bash, grub, octave, guix, etc.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Isn't Grub moot now? You're right in that I'm being unfair with my GUI based mindset.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

there are many non-systemd distros

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean with flagship software of the FSF? Why not krita, ardour, kdenlive, darktables, wine,...?

[–] exu@feditown.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because none of the projects you mentioned are GNU projects.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Mhm in that case: Emacs, grub, tar, screen. And damn, did you know about GNUHealth? Thats pretty dope.

[–] guillem@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago

I didn't, and I was looking for something similar, thanks!

[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

Forget screen, all my homies use tmux

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Mobile will never replace desktop. I would never do graphic art on a mobile device

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

not everyone agrees, but that's ok

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 1 points 4 months ago

They can both exist

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, and on this subject: AWS is not really a threat to FOSS, if anything it's mostly been a boon for us. Any time someone cites AWS while taking any of the four freedoms away from you, you should start asking some pointed questions.

Lol... I'd say anybody saying AWS is not really a threat to FOSS has a blind spot for them or is somehow affiliated with them.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] nik9000@programming.dev 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Amazon is certainly interesting for open source. They've caused me and my friends a fair bit of trouble but they have made some real contributions. I feel like they only do it when they have to though. They are quite happy to take others work and give nothing back.

They just feel very disingenuous. Opportunistic. A bit sleezy. But some of my favorite open source hackers work there and do good work. It's hard.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly it. They're taking advantage of open source as a business decision. It's not about the ethics, morals, or any of that touchy feely stuff to improve the world. It's all about money for the company.

They do have many good contributions as you said, but as soon as they have to choose between expense with little benefit to them (that includes little benefit to marketing too), and abusing open source for business, it's always the latter.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago

this is the vast majority of all businesses though.

[–] Kissaki 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If your content doesn't fit on the platforms limit, why not post on a platform intended for or accepting such content?

This form is quite irritating to read.

[–] averyminya 2 points 4 months ago

Unrelated: I had a temporary bout of dyslexia and read, "Dr. Drew on the biggest threats to FOSS" and got quite confused for just a moment.

[–] furzegulo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kissaki 1 points 4 months ago

Microsoft word?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Open washing, which is to say the proliferation of licenses that look FOSS if you squint but don't work if you look closer, and practices related to these licenses. Here we have big players like Elastic, Redis, MongoDB, and numerous smaller cases as well. The practice of building off of the lavish advantages of being in the FOSS ecosystem, then pulling the rug and seeking exclusive commercial monopolization of the end result.

Someone help me understand why this is a problem. I am willing to accept that I'm missing something. As I see it,

  1. Strong copyleft licenses like GPL attempt to put restrictions on what you can do with the software because of ways that corporations have exploited more permissively licensed FOSS projects.
  2. Examples include the "TiVo" stuff in GPL v3 which forces users to not lock people into specific executables or AGPL which prevents a loop hole of wrapping GPL software in something to allow usage over a network and not be considered distributing.
  3. Some FOSS advocates go so far as to call permissive licenses derogatory things like "cuck licenses" because of how they potentially allow corporations to exploit your work.
  4. Mongo, Elastic, and now Redis felt exploited by companies and that AGPL (what I believe is generally accepted as the most restrictive FOSS license) was not restrictive enough to meet their needs and switched to SSPL. Mongo in particular was even already using AGPL.
  5. The SSPL was rejected by the OSI because it allegedly discriminates against would-be SaaS providers which would violate OSD #6. I don't see how that's any more true than saying GPL v3 "discriminates against DVR manufacturers" because it had a clause specifically to combat what TiVo was doing or even saying AGPL "discriminates against SaaS providers" because it requires network use to be considered distribution (Google specifically warns against it).
  6. AGPL closed a loop hole in GPL. That's a fact. I don't think that's debatable. I believe SSPL is closing a loop hole in AGPL and I am confused why others disagree.
  7. Mongo, Elastic, and Redis are available under the SSPL but the requirements are strict enough that no SaaS providers want to use them. They are also available under commercial licenses which lift those restrictions for a price. The goal of this is to allow the benefits of open source without being exploited. While people disagreeing with me about SSPL being FOSS might say that this is intended to make it difficult for SaaS providers, I'd point out that dual licensing is common and acceptable. Take Qt for example. You can either use Qt and be bound by GPL (which means it is difficult for you and you have to release some of your would-be proprietary code) or you can pay for a commercial license and not be bound by GPL.

So... My question is, what's different about SSPL?

  • Why is SSPL not considered FOSS while other restrictive licenses like AGPL and GPL v3 are?
  • How are companies behind FOSS projects meant to prevent their code from being exploited by SaaS providers?
  • Is there some hypothetical lesser version of SSPL that still captures the essence of it while still being more restrictive than AGPL that would prevent exploitation by SaaS providers?
[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 3 points 4 months ago

Why is SSPL not considered FOSS while other restrictive licenses like AGPL and GPL v3 are?

So I have an answer for this. Basically all of the entities listed that relicensed their projects to the SSPL, also relicensed their projects using the dual licensing scheme, including one proprietary license. That's important later.

The SSPL's intent is probably that the deployment framework used to open source this software must be open sourced. I like this intent, and I would consider it Free/Libre Software, but it should be noted that another license, the open watcom license, which requires you to open source software if you simply deploy it, is not considered Free Software by the FSF. I don't really understand this decision. I don't count "must share source code used" as a restriction on usage cases. It seems that the FSF only cares about user freedom, whoever is using the software, and views being forced to open source code only used privately as a restriction.

Now, IANAL... but the SSPL's lettering is problematic. What is part of the deployment system? If I deploy software on Windows, am I forced to open source windows? If I deploy it on a server with intel management engine, am I forced to open source that? Due to the way it is worded, the SSPL is unusable.

And a dual license, one proprietary and one unusable means only one license — proprietary. There's actually a possibility that this is intentional, and that the intent of the SSPL was never to be usable, but rather so that these companies could pretend they are still Open Source while going fully proprietary.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume the SSPL's intent was benevolent but misguided, and that it's intent was not to be unusable, but rather to force companies to open source deployment platforms.

Of course, the OSI went and wrote an article about how the SSPL is not an open source license but that's all BS. All you need to do is take a look at who sponsors the OSI (Amazon, Google, other big SAAS providers) to realize that the OSI is just protecting their corporate interests, who are terrified of an SSPL license that actually works, so they seek to misrepresent the intent of the SSPL license as too restrictive for Open Source — which is false. Being forced to open source your deployment platform still allows you to use the code in any way you desire — you just have to open source your deployment platform.

Is there some hypothetical lesser version of SSPL that still captures the essence of it while still being more restrictive than AGPL that would prevent exploitation by SaaS providers?

AGPL. There's also Open Watcom, but it's not considered a Free Software license by the FSF, meaning software written under that wouldn't be included in any major Linux distros.

I think in theory you could make an SSPL that works. But SSPL ain't it.

Of course, there are problems with designing an SSPL that works, of course. Like, if you make it so that you don't have to open source proprietary code by other vendors, then what if companies split themselves up and one company makes and "sells" the proprietary programs to another.