Hacker News Reader

Comment by theboywho | Hacker News Reader

You are wrong in so many ways. First of all, you are confusing "Microsoft bringing GNU to Windows" with "this is the first time GNU is brought to Windows." Then you go on to make it seem like if the GNU/Linux debate is just the craziness of some guy called RMS: wrong, many people support this distinction. Then you go off-topic talking about why GNU hurd is a mess. None of this contributes to the key topic here: Microsoft only brought GNU, not Linux and not Ubuntu. A topic where you were wrong again. Please read https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU-kWindows

View on HN

> many people support this distinction

Really? Maybe I travel in the wrong circles, but most of the time this comes up most people just roll their eyes.

Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care because it works.

again, you only seem to want to discuss the off-topic subject related to GNU and the FSF positions in general. the thing is, no matter what your position on the GNU/Linux debate is, it doesnt change the fact microsoft brought GNU to windows and not Linux, nor ubuntu. It's just a fact, not an opinion.

> Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care because it works.

These users do not value freedom. And that's their right, however much we disagree with it.

It doesn't make those statements false, and doesn't change the situation. I wrote that article to focus on software freedom, its purpose, and GNU.

We don't ignore the fact that "most people don't care because it works"; that doesn't make sense, because that works against our ideals.

I suspect those users do care about freedom. The issue is that most people view a computer as just a tool to do work, not a political statement. The concept of software freedom make little sense to most people, and for good reason. The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people.

The other issue is the concept of "free software". No matter the claims, when the term free is applied to a product (or product class) like software, the immediate implication that the price is free. The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a product. Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

Telling people that Windows takes away their right to view and modify the source code will at best give lukewarm response, because most people have other concerns.

> I suspect those users do care about freedom.

I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear.

> The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people.

There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very specific reasons---ideology is essential.

> The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a product

I don't follow.

By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".

> Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

You're not setting a very high bar there ;)

> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".

If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

> If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms:

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the program are met, and that all derivative works are also free. This hack on copyright is called Copyleft, and it uses copyright to grant rights _back_ to the user.

  https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Copyright needs to be used because, in many countries, works are proprietary by default; there is no choice; in the US, if you do not explicitly grant rights to others, then all rights are reserved.

If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license.

I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also want less dependence on men with guns. Since I want to abolish copyright, I do not like the GPL. The best way to abolish copyright in practice is to use a permissive license.

I do not mind offering my work under a dual choice. If you agree on a contract to never enforce any copyright or patents, for eternity, in legal and technical form, you may distribute my work without honoring the terms of GPL.

I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire to abolish copyright but still prefer permissive licenses.

It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as 3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue over IP.

The only reason to prefer 3-BSD is because public domain isn't recognized worldwide. I'll agree that there should probably be something about software patents in there, those are stupid.

The contract would pertain to any work ever made by the contracte. You said you wanted to abolish copyright, and that mean you can't pick and choose to keep copyright around when its suitable. It would also work indiscriminate, cover any past or future work in software, pictures, music and so on.

If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue. All it does is to write down that specific aspect into an enforceable contract. Contract don't need to use men with guns if everyone choose to honor it, which was the historically method used back when people lived in tribes and villages made out of a handful houses. No one would dare to break their word, risking that others would start to do the same.

Your contract is worse than marriage (no divorce), and a terrible strawman. Lifelong written contract with a stranger? Ugh. What if I change my mind? I'll just continue releasing things permissively, and gradually abolish copyright in the process. (I don't really care about attribution which is generally all that's left.) You're free to use what I make in your copyleft projects!!

A deal is a deal. If you want to retain the option to change your mind and sue people over IP, then that is your decision. I won't be enabling that kind of behavior, nor will I donate code to it.

The best option would of course be that the law was changed and IP abolished by political change. Copyleft and permissive licenses would go away, artist could stand on the shoulders of giants without fear, and compensation would be addressed before the art was made rather than afterward. A fitting end to the flame wars.

Out of curiosity, in this hypothetical "never ever" license, are you also agreeing never to enforce copyright or patents in eternity?

Because otherwise, agreeing to it would not be in any way a step towards abolishment of copyright. It would, in fact, be something more akin to creating a free labour pool you are not willing to opt into yourself. You create a situation where you can profit from their work and they cannot. There's a word for this arrangement.

> If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

Do you not need men with guns to enforce your other freedoms, like the freedom of speech under the First Amendment? (I don't know if you're a US citizen.)

We're focusing on a very specific set of freedoms---a subset of all freedoms that individuals should have.

> I want to abolish copyright

We have to work within the system we have, and abolishing copyright is unlikely to happen any time soon. There's things that work now.

In the case of the GPL, we still need copyright to ensure that we can enforce the right for the users' to have their freedoms; otherwise, public domain works can be used in proprietary software.

Freedom is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society.

Anarchy is the lack of laws, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.

Freedom need laws, because the alternative is the law of nature.

... as discussed extensively on Hacker News on its own page, including threads such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459025 .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com