Re: [edu-eu] FWB: Foss with benefits

[Andrew 'Leny' Lindley]

On Friday 06 February 2015 12:42:15 Charles Cossé wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley <
> 
> address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Friday 06 Feb 2015 02:07:11 Charles Cossé wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > In light of points made in this conversation I spent some time reviewing
> > > FSF literature and definitions.   At the end of "Why Open Source misses
> > 
> > the
> > 
> > > point of Free Software"
> > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>
> > 
> > there is
> > 
> > > the following:
> > > 
> > > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an
> > > 
> > > > activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the activity is good in and
> > 
> > of
> > 
> > > > itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side.
> > 
> > (src
> > 
> > > > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>)
> > > 
> > > At the risk of cluttering simple sentences I have modified my text
> > > throughout to read "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software", so as
> > 
> > not
> > 
> > > to preclude anyone from participating or endorsing the project.
> > 
> > Thanks, but because of the confusion between the distinct meanings of
> > 'free'
> > the fully inclusive term Free Software prefers is (according to RMS) Free
> > Libre Open Source Software.
> 
> The thing is, there are 2+ audiences reading the pages in question, and I'm
> almost certain that most people will be more confused by anything but
> simple term "open source" ... so how about this:  I'll use the term
> "GPLv3'd" throughout, and modify my templates so that I can add a link
> (current limitation of my own making) ... and link to a full-on explanation
> of the differences in terminology (my explanation, and further links to FSF
> pages).  I think that would satisfy pretty much everything ... do you agree?

FLOSS, the acronym for Free Libre Open Source Software, has been established 
for 14 years, seems to be relatively well known and is indexed on 
Wikipedia[1].  Which points out it addresses more that just the English 
language.  FLOSS is the advertised _preference_, if you want to do something 
different then to my mind  "free/open-source (GPL'd) education software" is the 
better of your suggestions.  

This is because in practice a 'open source' on its own effectively means 'needs 
licensing and blob checking' to the free software community.  Some devs do 
things like say 'open source (GPL)' and then include e.g. the proprietary code 
to access Spotify in their offering.       

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software#FLOSS

> > > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today:  The notions of
> > > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often.  Personally, I don't
> > > believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe.   That
> > > has
> > > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my
> > > cosmology.   So FSF philosophy alienates me long before considerations
> > > of
> > > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not.  That argument is
> > > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with software.
> > 
> > To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recommend to you.  If you
> > believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths) do
> > you
> > propose to cook and eat your own children at some point?
> 
> Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wrong does not imply
> that I would therefore propose such a thing.   People can refrain from such
> things on their own, for obvious reasons, without the need to invoke
> unprovable philosophical arguments.

You needed one iteration more.  You've missed your 'for obvious reasons'  
implicitly acknowledges a fundamental _human_ judgement of something as 
wrong does it not?  Therefore within the scope of a human existence it is 
reasonable to contend there are other fundamental rights and wrongs.  

I appreciate YMMV, but since you can expect most of us here to believe in 
fundamental human rights because we're advocating new ones (myself included) 
you can also expect us not to agree with the contention that there is no such 
beast.

> 
> > > "Education <https://www.gnu.org/education/>" is at the core of FSF's
> > > mission, but it is really just *Computer Science* Education that FSF is
> > > referring to, as far as I can tell.
> > > 
> > > Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids
> > 
> > education.  (
> > 
> > > > src <https://www.gnu.org/education/>)
> > > 
> > > If, for example, I were to put a new version of my FSF-listed game
> > > TuxMathScrabble online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't
> > > "forbidding" any education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to
> > > *use*. In fact, it's JavaScript, so Computer Science students can even
> > > still read the code and learn.
> > 
> > There would be legal impediments to them using what they learned from it.
> 
> I don't buy that in this case.  If it's my creation and I want people to
> use what they learn from studying it, but just don't GPL it, then there are
> no legal impediments.

Unless you do the legal paperwork (e.g. a GPL license) then they are reliant 
on you not changing your mind, nor anyone (say a Patent Troll) suing you and 
recouping the legal rights in your works as compensation or a bunch of hard 
headed attorneys in charge of your estate when you pass away deciding 
differently.  

So please continue to give them their GPL rights.

> 
> Look into cleanroom reverse engineering if you want the gory details of the
> 
> > relevant laws.
> 
> I'm gonna save my eyesight for something else ... but I believe you that
> the legalese is out there.
> 
> > Further we are discussing free in the sense of liberty / rights not lack
> > of
> > encumbrance.  You have made a common mistaken conflation of the two.
> 
> I am talking about liberty/rights ... reading the above I don't see
> anything related to a "lack of encumbrance" ... what / who's encumbrance?

The phrasing was borrowed from the OED.  In this case just because the kids 
are able (aka free as in unrestricted/unencumbered) to read and learn from the 
code because it is Javascript does not mean [because of the the previous 
point] they have their software freedom rights guaranteed as per GPLv3 and are 
therefore guaranteed to be able to use their knowledge.  

Leny