Open Source Doesn't Mean More Software Is Better Software
www.wired.com
The battle between Mastodon and Trump’s Truth Social is a reminder that while the internet has changed, the ideals of free software haven't. That's a problem.

I am puzzled after reading this article on #Wired. After all, what is written is not wrong, but is highly critic and makes me question the effective importance of fighting for free software or at least open source

  • Jedrax@lemmy.ml
    19·
    3 years ago

    Just gave it a read, and all I can really say is that there is not real point to the article… it’s just a commentary on open source software that explains some of the perils that exist when people that you don’t want to use your code, do.

    It doesn’t convince me in any way that the open source software should not be pursued. What the article leaves out is how people use paid software for the same negative things that they mention in the article. It doesn’t matter. One thing you paid for, the other you have not.

  • nutomic@lemmy.ml
    192·
    3 years ago

    There is no problem. Open source means anyone can use their software as long as they make their modifications public. If you want to add a term that only agree politically with the author can use the software, that is a completely different concept. And a terrible one, it would just serve to fragment the open source ecosystem into different ideological niches.

    • ganymede@lemmy.ml
      11·
      3 years ago

      it would just serve to fragment the open source ecosystem into different ideological niches. pretty much what would suit the enemies of opensource very nicely

    • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
      7·
      3 years ago

      Open source means anyone can use their software as long as they make their modifications public.

      Sorry to nitpick, but thats copyleft, not open source. People get those terms confused and I think this is partly on purpose, I’ve seen official tenderings that said “open source” when I’m pretty sure they were meant to say copylefted/free software.

      If you want to add a term that only agree politically with the author can use the software, that is a completely different concept.

      There was an attempt to do that with “ethical licenses”, and at first I thought it was a good idea because most people probably don’t want their software used for weapon systems, surveillance or repression.

      Of course the people doing the latter couldn’t care less about your license and are never held accountable for anything anyways. But the final nail in the coffin of ethical licenses was when I read one disallowing me to use the code for non-christian purposes :D

      • Zach777@lemmy.ml
        6·
        3 years ago

        Tbh people forget that open source just means that you can see the source code. It has no bearing on what you can do with it. There are plenty of projects that are open source that have very restrictive licenses otherwise.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    14·
    3 years ago

    A lot of the critique in the article applies to permissive licenses like MIT. This is precisely why the corporate world has been championing these licenses over GPL.

  • ganymede@lemmy.ml
    12·
    3 years ago

    Article’s entire intent can be summarised in this single line at the end:

    “Perhaps the appropriate response is to keep free software away from for-profit actors”

    Just another thinly veiled emotive attempt to remove the free-software threat to corporate profits.

    No doubt it’s been an unsettling experience for Mastadon’s Rochko. But it’s mighty convenient the microscope just “happens” to be pointed at the OSS part, and only the application layer in this predicament.

    Why are they not asking about the brand of server being used in the datacenter? Or the switches? Or the CPU architecture? Should Intel/AMD/ARM be weighing in here? Should we have a discussion about 60 Hz AC Mains power? /s

    Incredibly convenient that OSS is the culprit here isn’t it?

  • powerbling@lemmy.ml
    7·
    3 years ago

    I wonder how an internet run by adobe, microsoft and apple would be. I think what’s written IS wrong because startups continue to appear and without free software they probably would go nowhere. Think about someone trying to build something great but has to pay all upfront cost for a project which is likely going to fail. The article doesn’t take into account research that without this way of thinking would have happened a lot slower. Not to mention the standardization that is a natural consequence of free software.

    I think what it’s written is like saying we shouldn’t research vulnerabilities in software because then someone could use that knowledge for nefarious intentions.

  • murky@lemmy.ml
    7·
    3 years ago

    There are downsides for everything for sure, but it’s the intent that matters. Also, the downsides for closed source are even worse, so it’s not an alternative anyways

  • dragnucs@lemmy.ml
    3·
    3 years ago

    While the author seems to understand the meaning of the license, on a linguistical or grammatical way, he fails to understand its spirit and intent. That is why he suggest restricting commercial use. His suggestion is nothing new, there do exists license by creativecommons.org with this kind rules, but they did not gain any traction.

    The main issue, I believe, is to define what is good, what is bad, what is actual hate speech, and to some extent, what even is commercial. Good and bad varies a lot between groups and cultures. While some might view an opinion as hate speech, some other might find nothing wrong with it.

    Thus, we cannot and should not put restriction on the kind of use.