This is amazing:
bleepingcomputer.com/news/secu

tl;dr:
1. a developer of a bunch of popular packages publishes new, intentionally broken versions of them as he doesn't want to support for-profit companies with his free work;
2. NPM *reverts* the packages to older versions against developer's wishes;
3. GitHub *blocks* the developer for acting "irresponsibly".

That story again: developer blocked by for making changes to his own code.

This is why and @forgefriends are so important!

@gargron @rysiek If you don't want to support BigTech, then don't use "permissive" licenses. Use AGPL. The problem is: Most people don't understand Copyright and licences. So they find their way to choosealicense.com which is curated by Microsoft Github. It prominently advertises the MIT licence with "I want it simple and permissive". This phrase sounds fair and good to most people. But permissive actually means "I permit BigTech to run their profit-driven thing with my code".

@t0k I don't care if others make profit. I just care if they're destroying our living place, and that's why BigTech are a problem.

@Gargron @rysiek

@ffeth @gargron @rysiek Also the #AGPL does allow to make profit. And that's fine. But it requires to play a fair game. That's what the BigTech companies fundamentally don't like. Because many fundamentally can't play such a fair game.

Follow

@t0k @ffeth @Gargron that's all correct. In practice, though, Big Tech will do anything they can to keep away from AGPL'ed code, as exemplified by Google's internal policies banning their employess and contractors from even having AGPL'ed code on their work laptops:
opensource.google/docs/using/a

> Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office.

· · Web · 1 · 7 · 10

@rysiek @ffeth @gargron I wonder if that's not somehow part of a smear campaign against the #AGPL. Because technically, I see no problem for Google if its employees use some AGPL program on their laptops. They don't run publicly accessible services from their laptops.

To me feels like it's more about fighting the AGPL in general because it's bad for them. Imagine all FOSS would be AGPL: BigDisaster for BigTech.

@t0k @ffeth @Gargron oh absolutely, that's an important part of it I'm sure.

But the other, probably *more* important part is *legal risk*. The developer might not even notice that certain functionality is provided by an AGPL-licensed lib. Or, that certain products of AGPL'ed programs were checked into the work repository.

So they prefer to "play it safe" and ban developers from having any AGPL tools on their workstations.

@t0k @ffeth @Gargron and it's up to us to make that into a *feature* of AGPL.

We *can* make the fact that Google *outright bans it* from developer workstations into a selling point, so to speak, for the license.

@t0k @rysiek @ffeth @Gargron

> Imagine all FOSS would be AGPL: BigDisaster for BigTech

Wasn't there talk of putting this “you must distribute even if over a network” AGPL thing into what would become the GPLv3? Obv that was not included in v3, hence why AGPL was created. It's a shame they didn't do that (maybe GPLv4 🤔), and instead put something against “Tivo-ization” which in retrospect was almost pointless...

@ebel @t0k @ffeth @Gargron I'm just using AGPL instead of GPLv3 for my projects, even ones that are not providing network services.

I see no downsides, honestly.

@rysiek @ebel @ffeth @gargron Same. If there's no user interaction at a distance, then the AGPL is like the GPLv3 as I understand. So there's no reason not to use the AGPL. Except if you want to explicitly allow somebody to create a closed-source service.

@t0k @rysiek @ebel @ffeth @Gargron It might be a bit tricky to determine what counts as user interaction at a distance:

AGPLv3 requires a program to offer source code to “all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network.” It doesn’t matter if you call the program a “client” or a “server,” the question you need to ask is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation that a person will be interacting with the program remotely over a network.

(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser)

E.g., if I modified an AGPL browser and used it to chat with you via some website, would I need to offer the source code of my modifications to you? However, based on the previous opinions of the FSF (https://web.archive.org/web/20100630185154/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser ), the intention is likely no.

This wouldn’t stop me from licensing client code as AGPL, especially since it’ll likely prevent any google employee from ever using it. :blobfoxdevil:

@rysiek @ebel @ffeth @gargron Many things can be turned into services in fact. Even read about some 'web browser as a service' where rendering is done in the cloud 🙈. Code meant to be client turned into service...

@ebel @t0k @rysiek @ffeth @Gargron Yeah, GPLv4 or v5 really need to go full commie. There are too many capitalist loopholes. Like, it doesn’t specify the project should be buildable by the general public or any changes have to be public regardless.

The GPL is not as fearsome as it could be.

@rysiek @jollyrogue @t0k @ffeth @Gargron well sure, but many projects are “GPL v2 or later” so if GPLv4 really did have this clause, then lots of free software would suddenly have this clause

@jollyrogue @t0k @rysiek @ffeth

🤔 The OSI (& term “open source”) was created to be “business friendly Free Software” so obv. they'd never adopt that approach.

The #FSF/“Free Software” have always tried to distance themselves from Open Source, so “going full commie” (your words) *could* be a way to do that. 🤔

(But, given how the FSF stuck with RMS, I doubt FSF would change at all that way, so alas I don't think this'd happen)

@ebel @t0k @rysiek @ffeth I don’t see the FSF fixing the GPL either. They’re too capitalist.

@ebel Or better what should it be named? Software Liberation Front?

@jollyrogue I'm not sure... Mentally I've been calling it “third wave FLOSS” (1st = RMS & FSF founding (mid 80s), 2nd = OSI & “open source” (late 90s on)).

Have you seen “Ethical Source”? ethicalsource.dev/

@ebel @jollyrogue

It's not FLOSS at all, and these licenses are all dangerous.

Please don't use or promote them.

@emacsen @ebel @jollyrogue When I was reading the ethical licenses I was thinking "this doesn't seem very ethical".

For instance, a license which compels you to obey labour laws in your area. Often the labour laws are not that great, having been comprehensively trashed by successive administrations over decades. Strictly observing the labour laws may require you to do unethical things, such as opposing strikes which the government does not approve of or has declared to be an "illegal gathering". It may require you to inform authorities about unauthorized protests, and so on.

@bob very much this.

Additionally, they further fracture the commons of libre code. And that plays right into the hands of Big Tech and the like.

@bob Likewise, I'm also a little uneasy with “You must uphold human rights” because Ireland used to have a constitutional “right to life of the unborn”, i.e. an anti-abortion amendment (thankfully repealed in 2018). Anti-abortion campaigners claimed they were upholding human rights.

Since I'm pro abortion rights, how would that licence work in that environment?

Still, I think it's good that someone is trying something...

@emacsen @jollyrogue Correct, “Ethical Source” isn't FLOSS, and they don't say that. Personally I promote & use AGPL, not an ethical source licence.

@ebel @jollyrogue I don't see those as particularly anarchist of anti-capitalist. They do the same thing as center-social-liberal policy does for regulating the details of capitalism.

@clacke @ebel @jollyrogue the most promising direction i've seen is Kleiner's proposal of copyfarleft (Peer Production License, for ex, wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Pr) and venture communism, which differentiate along class lines. This means full FOSS rights for workers and #coops and licensing terms for organizations exploit other people's labour (pay to use). Not foss, yes, argues for the need to go beyond foss. telekommunisten.net/the-teleko
@bob @rysiek

@zeh ah yes, “copyfarleft”! I forgot about that term.

I _really_ like that it's not commerical-vs-noncommerical, but instead democratic-vs-nondemocratic orgs. I'm fine with commerical stuff

@zeh Creative Commons has some “non-commerical” licences (-NC), but I wish there was a “democratic only” version (-DO?). I'm more OK with some solo person making money from my thing, or the BBC making money with it, but not so OK with some shareholder owned medacorp...

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!