Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


ultravoices posted:

working for exposure is good actually.

Exposure is something you die from, sadly.

As far as trying to control what other people try to do with your code, I made an incredibly insignificant contribution to 3d printing (involving a problem with infills). That contribution has most definitely been used by violent extremists, but it was also was used by the people trying to save lives during early covid by 3d printing parts for ventilators and canulas and strap tighteners for masks. My GF works in a grocery and we might have dodged getting covid b/c of a 3d print that let disposable masks fit her better.

I try to be optimistic that the good will outweigh the bad. That my dumb KDE bugfixes will be used by as many social workers as chinese labor camp administrators and whatnot.

SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Dec 25, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


Cybernetic Vermin posted:

one of those articles that have a lot of basic things right (e.g. how the big cloud platforms have rendered a lot of past license activism moot), but fails to then inspect his own motivations and moral position, instead just obliquely referring to "software freedoms" and going "whelp, might as well keep coding away and releasing under mit licenses v:shobon:v".

It's a very deliberate and manipulative technique. Build common ground then try to sway from there. The benefits of the GPL family stand apart from the FSF, RMS, and SaaS.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice


SYSV Fanfic posted:

It's a very deliberate and manipulative technique. Build common ground then try to sway from there.

isn't that just persuasion

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


raminasi posted:

isn't that just persuasion

If you genuinely believe the common ground, possibly. Most people who self label entrepreneur really mean aspiring noteable psychopath so you should just assume the worst.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


SYSV Fanfic posted:


I was specifically responding to rotor's hardline stance that writing/maintaining free software automatically means personal exploitation.

What part of the manifesto led you to believe this is what I'm trying to say? Or was it my posts here in this thread?


quote:

Trying to control how the software gets used (as opposed to getting paid) means taking responsibility for something that's largely beyond your control.

Its only beyond your control if you make no attempts to maintain control of it.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


commercial software companies manage to maintain some level of control over the software they license to people, I dont know why an individual or a group of individuals would be unable to do so.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


to recap, my fundamental objections to open source as currently practiced are:

1) you give up all control over the ends to which your work is a means.

2) you're largely doing volunteer work for startups

3) it devalues software itself

4) in many ways, esp for junior devs, it's become work for exposure


Writing open source code as it is today may not be personal exploitation for the author, but it definitely can be (1,2) and the system it contributes to is exploitative to others (3, 4)

I would never maintain open source code, but I dont think it automatically means personal exploitation, although I've seen plenty of instances of that being the case.

edit: just gonna post this again because why not https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h__zP17eMoSXntHq6Jo7nKxRB8DoCOcVZ794Qd4LEA4/

rotor fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 26, 2021

rjmccall
Sep 7, 2007

no worries friend

Fun Shoe

i feel obliged to point out that on the sorts of oss i work on, where the vast majority of work is company-directed, "exposure" is actually a fairly reliable way to get hired. probably just another way in which it's not what rotor has in mind, other than the lack of controls over ends thing

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


rotor posted:

to recap, my fundamental objections to open source as currently practiced are:

1) you give up all control over the ends to which your work is a means.

2) you're largely doing volunteer work for startups

3) it devalues software itself

4) in many ways, esp for junior devs, it's become work for exposure

1. is a weird problem due to the fact software is usually licensed and not sold. In almost any other industry you lose the ability to control how your product gets used once it's been sold. It's connected to the harm software can do, because most products you cannot handwaive away your liability for injury and fault. That's not going to change until people ask why software can ruin a business or end a life without recourse, whereas any other product class can seek remedy. The 737 air max was really a story about tech industry ethos seeping into other industries. European pharma could threaten their distributors, but they can't sue US prisons for killing people with their drugs.

2. Like the clopen source link (dunno if you wrote it) points out about certain projects - the "big" projects everyone points to as successful are only considered so because they were monetizeable. Social pressure is pretty powerful so maybe start clowning on people who decide they're going to contribute to mongodb in their spare time.

3. Software was always going to be a race to the bottom, and the only thing that really stabilized prices was the emergence of a monopoly that everyone else could set their prices by. Eventually the only products that could compete with the resources of the monopolists were FOSS. GCC didn't kill Borland or Aztec. They died because they could not fund the development time necessary to compete with the Visual Studio monopoly (dominant because of the windows monopoly), which itself employed anticompetitive bundling practices (msde, all languages, etc). Average consumers/users don't choose FOSS b/c of the price - eventually it winds up being the only competitor on features. Software with high, domain specific utility still sells really well via referral at my hackerspace (vcarve, vinly master, insync, mesh mixer off the top of my head) - despite (harder to use and buggy) foss software being available.

4. I really disagree that foss is even close to the root cause of this. Those stupid coding bootcamps are everywhere promising participants that if they waste three months of their lives learning CSS/HTML/Javascript. I started an "open code" for my hackerspace. I intended it to help people get started with raspberry pi/arduino projects. The first night I wound up with 28 people I'd never seen before all doing one of two local bootcamps. Dumping ~1,000/year quasi-qualified applicants that do not have the skills of a CS associates into the local job market means that people have to find a way to distinguish themselves. Internet related companies have pretty successfully used the "extreme shortage, good jobs" to create an oversupply of the underqualified. The fact they benefit from their unofficial unpaid internships in FOSS is icing on the cake.

quote:

edit: just gonna post this again because why not https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h__zP17eMoSXntHq6Jo7nKxRB8DoCOcVZ794Qd4LEA4/

Read the whole thing start to finish. If you wrote it, It's a good argument.

edit: also, cooperative education should be the norm.

SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Dec 26, 2021

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


SYSV Fanfic posted:

1. is a weird problem due to the fact software is usually licensed and not sold. In almost any other industry you lose the ability to control how your product gets used once it's been sold. It's connected to the harm software can do, because most products you cannot handwaive away your liability for injury and fault. That's not going to change until people ask why software can ruin a business or end a life without recourse, whereas any other product class can seek remedy. The 737 air max was really a story about tech industry ethos seeping into other industries. European pharma could threaten their distributors, but they can't sue US prisons for killing people with their drugs.

This is all true but the point remains that we are in a position to retain control the use of our work, and yet we don't because ... idk, because we're vain, or we're lazy or any of half a dozen reasons. Liability has nothing to do with whether you can enforce a license agreement or not.

quote:

Eventually the only products that could compete with the resources of the monopolists were FOSS. GCC didn't kill Borland or Aztec. They died because they could not fund the development time necessary to compete with the Visual Studio monopoly (dominant because of the windows monopoly), which itself employed anticompetitive bundling practices (msde, all languages, etc). Average consumers/users don't choose FOSS b/c of the price - eventually it winds up being the only competitor on features. Software with high, domain specific utility still sells really well via referral at my hackerspace (vcarve, vinly master, insync, mesh mixer off the top of my head) - despite (harder to use and buggy) foss software being available.

I dont agree with this at all. Netscape, Macromedia, Napster, Palm, etc. And GCC definitely hastened Borlands demise. And the idea that average users don't choose FOSS software based on price seems ... like way off base. People tolerate all kinds of bullshit out of lots of open sores poo poo because the price is right.

quote:

4. I really disagree that foss is even close to the root cause of this.

It's not at fault, but its just how the industry has co-opted the community.

quote:

Read the whole thing start to finish. If you wrote it, It's a good argument.

edit: also, cooperative education should be the norm.

I did, and thanks. Feel free to share it with your friends.

edit: agreed

rotor fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Dec 26, 2021

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005



in addition i also consider this a separate but related thing:

5. the gospel of *inherent* goodness of open source contribution leads to a lot of real costs and bad software.

carefully managed and controlled (with some kind of goal orientation) many projects turn out great, but in most cases the idea that more patches/features/contributors/extensions/whatever => better rules the day. this idea has comingled into that most modern open-source-based development methodology which includes just pulling in vast amounts of completely random code (see: npm syndrome), and there being no resistance to ballooning implicit requirements when someone tosses more code at things.

log4j2 is a good example here, as the main log4j2 guy started it because log4j1 wasn't very good at logging multiple non-string attributes (?!), and didn't offer very strong delivery guarantees, e.g. appenders throwing exceptions (??!). why was this important? because he works in banking and was idiot enough to want to do actual bank audit logging in log4j. the entire project shifts that way, accrues vast complexity, and eventually breaks the world in a way much costlier (in the real people-lose-their-weekend-off sense) than any effort saved up to that point by log4j's existence.

this problem is kind of downstream from rotors list, a combination of lack of control and corporate capture, but otoh a very current incident.

Cybernetic Vermin fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Dec 26, 2021

prisoner of waffles
May 8, 2007

Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the fishmech
About my neck was hung.


speaking of log4j, was this already posted?

https://dev.to/yawaramin/the-human-toll-of-log4j-maintenance-35ap

short read, okay points

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


Was thinking while I slept last night. Imagine finding a box truck on the side of the road where every part had been machined or cast by random people then put together. Imagine taking it and building a delivery business around it. Neighborhood you do your deliveries in gets rough and you get robbed a few times. You start driving your truck around to the random people who made the parts and demanding they turn it into an armored box truck. You start writing blog posts about how you can ensure the (random) people who make the truck parts (for free) spend the time to make sure they already come reinforced. At no point do you reflect that you built your livelihood on a boxtruck made by random people you found on the side of the road.


rotor posted:

The idea that average users don't choose FOSS software based on price seems ... like way off base. People tolerate all kinds of bullshit out of lots of open sores poo poo because the price is right.

In my experience, it's people who don't need the tool to do economically productive work/frequently use that justifies buying the software. Most people who tolerate terrible FOSS are using it for one offs or things they don't do very often. Kinda like piracy in games - most FOSS users would not translate to sales.

Can you explain what you mean by napster, netscape, etc?

quote:

And GCC definitely hastened Borlands demise

I don't think it was by much. From the beginning Borland's programming products were about ease of use with quck compiles/turn around. GCC never had a good IDE/Debugger on windows. It definitely never had a good windowing toolkit. Borland couldn't keep pace with visual studio, and their longest lived product (Delphi) survived because MS never made a visual pascal. Free Pascal only started when Borland said it was abandoning DOS.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


I just realized the box truck is even more ludicrous, because it's dozens of guys with box trucks they found on the side of the road free blogging about quality control problems in the free box truck part industry. Some of them welded together the box trucks into cargo ships that they're delivering hundreds of tons of goods with.

SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 26, 2021

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



you can get the open source box truck for free, often with all parts machined by other people working in boxtruck factories, but nobody actually sells a boxtruck you can own, and the only other option is forever renting the box trucks from companies that go bankrupt all the time while none of said boxtrucks are ever compatible.

tech is its own environment with its own reality.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


MononcQc posted:

tech is its own environment with its own reality.

I wonder how much longer and how bad of a thing has to happen before the public at large starts demanding that software be held to the standards of normal reality. People don't question the status quo. Essentially when will "but with a computer" stop making something special and unique. The fact that there is a difference between a cleaning service destroying your family picture album and a microsoft updating trashing your mydocuments becomes more absurd and unfair every year.

rotor posted:

This is all true but the point remains that we are in a position to retain control the use of our work, and yet we don't because ... idk, because we're vain, or we're lazy or any of half a dozen reasons. Liability has nothing to do with whether you can enforce a license agreement or not.

I wanted to respond to this separately and think on it good and hard first. A whole lot of social problems from tech stem from the fact that the tech industry carved out all the regulations, laws, and case history without much or any input from the public. Individual responsibility is all well and good, but just like guns, vaccinations, or anything else collective/social action trumps it. Even guns - you cannot sue a gun manufacturer because someone shot you. But if you get shot by someone holding a gun because of a misfire you can. If discriminatory facial recognition software, or a software bug or w/e cause you harm - I'm not aware of people suing the makers of the software directly and winning - because of the absurd legal landscape of software licenses.

I think it's fair to ask people to consider the ethical implications and the harm that can result from giving away their software. How bad could it make someone's life if it has a bug. I don't think it's fair to expect people to try to tackle a societal issue through personal responsibility or direct action.

It would also kill a lot of FOSS, or at the very least necessitate releasing/publishing as an LLC .

Anyone remember shrink wrapped licenses? How long it took to finally kill them?

SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Dec 26, 2021

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



SYSV Fanfic posted:

I wonder how much longer and how bad of a thing has to happen before the public at large starts demanding that software be held to the standards of normal reality. People don't question the status quo. Essentially when will "but with a computer" stop making something special and unique. The fact that there is a difference between a cleaning service destroying your family picture album and a microsoft updating trashing your mydocuments becomes more absurd and unfair every year.

Tech is too profitable to be regulated. I'm cynical and barely kidding here:

https://twitter.com/mononcqc/status/1457453100869033996

(tweet because I'm too lazy to re-host the doodle).

The potential for a profitable area is too big to be ignored (all the big tech players are now more profitable, larger companies than any traditional ones), and they are now sort of too big to fail and be reined in. The fines are too small to be consequent, and even Facebook defrauding everyone on video ads won't stop marketing departments from going there because their budgets are too tied to it, and the promise of profitability is better than most other things.

Anyway, rather than regulating things such that tech can do fewer things, the pattern I generally expect is that the legal liability for things going bad will just be shifted onto individuals or regulatory bodies--we respect the standards, just force better standards (while lobbying against them)--rather than on corporations.

A company wouldn't be blamed for destroying (or leaking) photos, there'd be a legal disclaimer about it and the legal system in place to protect them. So long as the expected benefit to the organization is greather than the risk (the liability), there's no reason they wouldn't market the poo poo out of it. The exploitative aspect is legally baked in, which is partly why it ruled so much when gig workers started "abusing" the arbitration clauses that prevented collective action by just spamming so much arbitration they became a financial burden on the organizations (which then wiggled out of the obligation anyway, while working on things like Prop 22 at the same time).

Also I would add: this is the reality already. Tesla beta tests life-endangering poo poo on public roads, everything is data-mined to poo poo, ads are everywhere based on it, Apple trackers are used by stalkers, and the unsafe software is rolled out to the public already. The safer non-connected world of the past is gone already, and the current generation is growing up with this as a status quo. This is normal reality and until there will be a lot more bodies, nothing's gonna be done about it because you can assign a value to life and the prospective profits are just too high.

MononcQc fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Dec 26, 2021

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


The same thing was said about interstate trusts/corporations in 1899. The US at least is a representative republic, with 50 co-sovereign representative republics that can all implement their own regulation. People can't pay much attention to tech at the moment because of the consequences of wealth inequality. While the current supreme court hates administrative law, they very much believe in congress's powers to tax, legislate, and regulate. It will be fixed eventually, but other poo poo's more pressing.

Consider the US political system is still so broken that after Jan 1st there will be insulin dependent diabetics showing up in emergency rooms to get their insulin b/c they'll die without it and they can't pay their annual deductible out of pocket.

I know it's hard to keep from getting crazy cynical, but if you spend a lot of time angry thinking about these things and you have the energy/time to volunteer with kids try to find an opportunity. Doing a reading skills program was really good for me, and for a time I was paid by the boy scouts (yeah, I know) to do outreach at community centers in neighborhoods with high murder rates. As a guy that's never going to be a father it was a real realignment of my priorities and it's helped me keep hope that things will change for the better.

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



yeah I get that. Mostly it's just the idea that things won't improve with the system as-is. The required shifts will need to come from bigger changes elsewhere, and I'm just putting more of my energies elsewhere than in OSS given they tend to fuel that self-propelling machine these days. They don't need more of my help and almost anything new I do in my free time is obscure or licensed in ways that would just piss any corporation off.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


MononcQc posted:

yeah I get that. Mostly it's just the idea that things won't improve with the system as-is. The required shifts will need to come from bigger changes elsewhere, and I'm just putting more of my energies elsewhere than in OSS given they tend to fuel that self-propelling machine these days. They don't need more of my help and almost anything new I do in my free time is obscure or licensed in ways that would just piss any corporation off.

Yeah, definitely only do stuff you enjoy. I can't fault someone who thinks b-trees or indexes or w/e are the most interesting thing ever so they hack on a DBMS. A lot of FOSS newbies need deprogramming from the productivity cult. There are other measures of value than economic utility. Go add some new levels to kolf, or make a crappy game and sell it for a buck.

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005



whether change is possible or not it is anyway useful to kick these arguments around a bit to get an understanding of where one stands.

such as just having some perspective when osi whined about the sspl (very corporate agpl++ used by mongo and elastic), which is pretty healthy really:

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

OSI mad

quote:

We’ve seen that several companies have abandoned their original dedication to the open source community by switching their core products from an open source license, one approved by the Open Source Initiative, to a “fauxpen” source license. The hallmark of a fauxpen source license is that those who made the switch claim that their product continues to remain “open” under the new license, but the new license actually has taken away user rights.

The license du jour is the Server Side Public License. This license was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for approval but later withdrawn by the license steward when it became clear that the license would not be approved.

Open source licenses are the foundation for the open source software ecosystem, a system that fosters and facilitates the collaborative development of software. Fauxpen source licenses allow a user to view the source code but do not allow other highly important rights protected by the Open Source Definition, such as the right to make use of the program for any field of endeavor. By design, and as explained by the most recent adopter, Elastic, in a post it unironically titled “Doubling Down on Open,” Elastic says that it now can “restrict cloud service providers from offering our software as a service” in violation of OSD6. Elastic didn’t double down, it threw its cards in.

And the software commons are now poorer for it. The Elastic projects were offered under the Apache license. Outside contributors donated time and energy with the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good, the public software commons. Now, instead, their contributions are embedded in a proprietary product. If they want to enjoy the fruits of their own and their co-contributors’ labor, they have to agree to a proprietary license or fork.

This is not to say that Elastic, or any company, shouldn’t adopt whatever license is appropriate for its own business needs. That may be a proprietary license, whether closed source or with source available. The Open Source Initiative strongly believes that the open source development model is the better way to develop software and results in a superior product. But we also recognize that it is not the right choice for everyone in all cases. A company may find that its business needs and direction have changed over time, such that the original license choice is interfering with their business model. A switch may be the right choice.

But Elastic’s relicensing is not evidence of any failure of the open source licensing model or a gap in open source licenses. It is simply that Elastic’s current business model is inconsistent with what open source licenses are designed to do. Its current business desires are what proprietary licenses (which includes source available) are designed for.

What a company may not do is claim or imply that software under a license that has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative, much less a license that does not meet the Open Source Definition, is open source software. It’s deception, plain and simple, to claim that the software has all the benefits and promises of open source when it does not.

Signed,
The OSI Board of Directors

brb conna trademark "fauxpen source"


e:

https://twitter.com/h0mbre_/status/1353406764423798784

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


Man, I was reading it as "foxpen"wondering wtf they were talking about, not realizing it was a play on Faux Pas.

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



they didn't manage to get a trademark on open source so all they can do is whine

pretty good quote from that article if you don't wanna read the whole thing:

quote:

I now see the OSI story as a two year triumph and a twenty year tragedy. The work OSI existed to do is long done, carrying off a marketing coup in 1998. What’s left is preserving that hallowed memory, and the wisps of buzz still gassing off it, as a wasting asset to 2020 and beyond. And minting credentials of proximity to the power that had been, at the beginning.

OSI now does more to stymie opposition to industry abuses than to galvanize it. It is like the startup that, having long since made its highest placed funders and founders rich, lumbers on in the trappings of a dated incumbent, courting unequal partnerships with patrons nearer their prime. In more practical terms, it’s unclear what initiative the Initiative has left, apart from policing the term “open source” across social media.

But there’s no such thing as police without law.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


It's almost as if the AGPL/Server side public license is bad for their major donors.

https://opensource.org/corporate-sponsors-support#sponOps

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


Looks like it's pretty bad for the main employers of the OSI board as well... Tidelift, Redhat, Google, Etc.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


What a really clever trick to get licenses vetted for your use in a tax exempt way.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


Cybernetic Vermin posted:

in addition i also consider this a separate but related thing:

5. the gospel of *inherent* goodness of open source contribution leads to a lot of real costs and bad software.

I agree. I think the idea that sharing is always good is naive.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


SYSV Fanfic posted:

In my experience, it's people who don't need the tool to do economically productive work/frequently use that justifies buying the software. Most people who tolerate terrible FOSS are using it for one offs or things they don't do very often. Kinda like piracy in games - most FOSS users would not translate to sales.

that's true, but it's shades of grey. There's plenty of smaller places where price is a significant issue.

quote:

Can you explain what you mean by napster, netscape, etc?

you said "Eventually the only products that could compete with the resources of the monopolists were FOSS" and i feel like those companies are some counterexamples.

quote:

GCC never had a good IDE/Debugger on windows

neither did microsoft lmao

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


SYSV Fanfic posted:

I wanted to respond to this separately and think on it good and hard first. A whole lot of social problems from tech stem from the fact that the tech industry carved out all the regulations, laws, and case history without much or any input from the public. Individual responsibility is all well and good, but just like guns, vaccinations, or anything else collective/social action trumps it. Even guns - you cannot sue a gun manufacturer because someone shot you. But if you get shot by someone holding a gun because of a misfire you can. If discriminatory facial recognition software, or a software bug or w/e cause you harm - I'm not aware of people suing the makers of the software directly and winning - because of the absurd legal landscape of software licenses.

Sure, I'll agree with this, but i'm not sure if this is some follow-on commentary or an objection to some part of that long fuckin doc

quote:

I think it's fair to ask people to consider the ethical implications and the harm that can result from giving away their software. How bad could it make someone's life if it has a bug. I don't think it's fair to expect people to try to tackle a societal issue through personal responsibility or direct action.

My whole deal is about taking responsibility for the use of your software by maintaining control of who gets to use it. Its a moral argument about whether I am culpable when my work is used for evil. My assertion is that if you have simple, easy ways to avoid your work being used for evil and you dont avail yourself of them, then yes, you bear some culpability. If I leave a loaded shotgun laying around with a note that says "If you're hungry, use this to shoot a goose. Please dont use it for crimes." and someone picks it up and uses it to murder a bunch of children, I feel like we as a society would say that yeah, I bear some moral responsibility for that. Same deal with machine vision algorithms.

Liability concerns are a legal thing and I haven't spent much time thinking about it.

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



rotor posted:

Sure, I'll agree with this, but i'm not sure if this is some follow-on commentary or an objection to some part of that long fuckin doc

My whole deal is about taking responsibility for the use of your software by maintaining control of who gets to use it. Its a moral argument about whether I am culpable when my work is used for evil. My assertion is that if you have simple, easy ways to avoid your work being used for evil and you dont avail yourself of them, then yes, you bear some culpability. If I leave a loaded shotgun laying around with a note that says "If you're hungry, use this to shoot a goose. Please dont use it for crimes." and someone picks it up and uses it to murder a bunch of children, I feel like we as a society would say that yeah, I bear some moral responsibility for that. Same deal with machine vision algorithms.

Liability concerns are a legal thing and I haven't spent much time thinking about it.

the more accurate analogy is a note that says "I would personally prefer you didn't do crimes but arbitrary principles dictate that you should do whatever you want, wink wink"

quote:

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Nomnom Cookie
Aug 30, 2009





does seem pretty sketch that it's impossible for a license to be officially Open Source and have a clause saying "you may not use this software to advocate for or commit genocide"

i guess you could look up if facebook has any banned licenses

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


Nomnom Cookie posted:

does seem pretty sketch that it's impossible for a license to be officially Open Source and have a clause saying "you may not use this software to advocate for or commit genocide"

i guess you could look up if facebook has any banned licenses

thats because the open source community is entirely focused on freedom of ideas and refuses to even consider that responsibilities for ideas exist.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


rotor posted:

Liability concerns are a legal thing and I haven't spent much time thinking about it.

I don't think you can completely separate the two as we often compel a minimal morality via the legal system.

rotor posted:

Sure, I'll agree with this, but i'm not sure if this is some follow-on commentary or an objection to some part of that long fuckin doc

It was a follow on to your four point summary. I don't object to anything in the doc outright, though I might disagree somewhat. I don't think your wrong about anything. Your opinions are well formed, your facts are correct, and it's conclusion well reasoned.


rotor posted:

you said "Eventually the only products that could compete with the resources of the monopolists were FOSS" and i feel like those companies are some counterexamples.

Of all those companies I think Macromedia is the only one that didn't fail. I believe the main reason it didn't is because Microsoft was on it's absolute best behavior post 1999 judgement. Gotta wonder how the tech world would be different if gore had won and Microsoft had been busted under the sherman act. In the end macromedia got bought out by another monopolist.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


As a total aside, I just learned something I was taught in college during a lecture (2002) was wrong. I was told that the Therac-25 manufacturer was found liable for the software defects because of the software license had them assume all liability for use. I don't think that's the case, I think it was re-used internal code from other models. That's always shaped my perceptions of software licensing - that you could get away with murder, and that might be wrong.

SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 27, 2021

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


SYSV Fanfic posted:

I don't think you can completely separate the two as we often compel a minimal morality via the legal system.

For the context of this conversation I view them as wholly separable. My argument is entirely a moral one, if someone wants to try to make that a legal issue they're welcome to try.

quote:

It was a follow on to your four point summary. I don't object to anything in the doc outright, though I might disagree somewhat. I don't think your wrong about anything. Your opinions are well formed, your facts are correct, and it's conclusion well reasoned.

sweet, thx

quote:

Of all those companies I think Macromedia is the only one that didn't fail. I believe the main reason it didn't is because Microsoft was on it's absolute best behavior post 1999 judgement.

I mean all companies eventually fail, but they had long runs doing things monopolists didnt/couldnt. I think the larger point we were talking about is that FOSS was the only way you could bring a robust platform to compete with monopolists and I think that's overly cynical.

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


rotor posted:

I mean all companies eventually fail, but they had long runs doing things monopolists didnt/couldnt. I think the larger point we were talking about is that FOSS was the only way you could bring a robust platform to compete with monopolists and I think that's overly cynical.

I see it still happen a lot. Fusion 360 for personal use was designed from the beginning to flatten any and all competition to autodesk's hegemony. When it was clear that they'd Tungusku'd the market they pulled it back. They can always deploy it again later if need be.

Progressive JPEG
Feb 19, 2003



there isn't really a community when it comes to the OSI. input isn't welcome, everyone should follow doctrine and the course must not change regardless of where it's headed. if anything its worse now, i don't think the OSI of today would approve any copyleft licenses for example. ultimately it's a lobbying organization centered around making sure that everyone sticks to permissive licensing, since its sponsors hate the idea of being told they can't do something

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier
of the Neil Bush Torch

 
 
 
 
teh butts


SYSV Fanfic posted:

I see it still happen a lot. Fusion 360 for personal use was designed from the beginning to flatten any and all competition to autodesk's hegemony. When it was clear that they'd Tungusku'd the market they pulled it back. They can always deploy it again later if need be.

Solidworks still exists. The CAD, CAM & machine control vertical is very weird and it's strange to me that the only FOSS participants are either

1) LinuxCNC
2) some hosed up script someone wrote in python like f-engrave or pycam
3) grbl for tiny little machines
4) a bunch of weird poo poo around 3d printing like slicers

SYSV Fanfic
Sep 9, 2003


rotor posted:

Solidworks still exists. The CAD, CAM & machine control vertical is very weird and it's strange to me that the only FOSS participants are either

1) LinuxCNC
2) some hosed up script someone wrote in python like f-engrave or pycam
3) grbl for tiny little machines
4) a bunch of weird poo poo around 3d printing like slicers

You forgot inkscape plugins!

There were a couple of startup offerings around 3d printing, as well as tyring to improve the cad style 3d modelling in blender that were gaining effort. Autodesk moved to capture the market really aggressively by buying Tinkercad and 123d (and halting further development for both), and licensing fusion 360 for free. In the span of like three years they'd made sure that their competitors would remain toys or crap foss.

LinuxCNC is surprisingly good for proprietary machines that no longer have support. I've resurrected two old CnC machines with it, a parallel card, and a mach3 board.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



https://twitter.com/fxcoudert/status/1476204806381395969

they may have nukes, but we didn’t get paid, so...

admiring the strict policy there.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply