Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Who Is Free Software For?

Who Is Free Software For?

9 comments

·March 16, 2025

PaulDavisThe1st

I still prefer Louigi Verona's deep ruminations on free/libre software:

https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philoso...

rileymat2

> With Open Source/Free Software as well as Creative Commons we have build pipelines to contribute to the commons (great!) but we never thought about how to defend those commons against appropriation.

Perhaps the CC people have not thought about this, but it is precisely why GPL exists, and later AGPL.

If courts find that derivative work comes from AI systems, the AGPL will become a very interesting legal landscape for even hosted models.

ponorin

CC SA(ShareAlike) clause is basically the equivalent of GPL: any derivations must be licensed the same as the original (either CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC-SA, latter only permitting noncommercial use).

lolinder

There's a reason why FOSS is by hackers for hackers—it's software written by people to solve their own needs. They release that software as Free/Libre so that others can benefit from it if they would like to, but first and foremost it's written because the author themselves saw a problem and wanted a solution. What's changed is that as startup culture infected hacker culture a few subcultures developed within FOSS that thought that that wasn't good enough.

One of those subcultures decided that it was an imperative that they make more money off of their FOSS projects than anyone else does—this is how you get the Matt Mulenwegs of the FOSS world, who diss on other FOSS developers because "most of the value" of their projects was "captured by others" [0]. They see FOSS as a revenue stream and if it's not a revenue stream (or if it ends up being a bigger revenue stream for someone else than it is for you) it's a failure.

Another subculture thinks that FOSS should be mainstream. That's the idea typified here: by "hackers for hackers" is selfish and we should instead "reshape our thinking towards more political goals and values".

The fact is that both of these perspectives are fundamentally not about adapting FOSS to the times—they're both about building two entirely different philosophies. FOSS is not a business model, and what the Matt Mulenwegs of the world actually want is to be a tech startup CEO. And FOSS is not and cannot be mainstream because to become mainstream requires a bucketload of UX design and user support work that no one in their right mind wants to take on for free as a hobbyist.

FOSS is by hackers for hackers because it must be. If you want to make more profit than anyone else does off your project or if you want to pursue "political goals and values" you're looking for an entirely different type of organization.

[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20241014235025/https://ma.tt/2024...

ewzimm

AI tools are removing coding barriers so everyone benefits except those who depend on restrictions, but even they benefit in the long run.

A couple minor issues: the AGPL and similar licenses exist and have been effective at stopping classes of appropriation, and the cake quote is the common misconception. It's referring to the nutritious leftovers usually discarded, and free software means the corporate code deemed nonessential enough to release under free licenses gets spread around, so let's eat that delicious free software cake.

pessimizer

Free Software isn't for hackers. It's for users. Hackers are also users, but they're not special.

The purpose of Free Software isn't to teach people how to program. It's not a scholarship program for gifted kids to generate startups. It's to institutionalize the right to access and change that software that defines the behavior of the machines that control our lives. You may say that only a programmer can take advantage of that right, so that means that Free Software is meant to create hackers. But I can hire a hacker just like I hire a plumber, or like my condo association hires a roofer, or my town hires a construction firm.

There should not be machines in your life that run on secret commands that you are not allowed to know about. They are not working for you.

edit: it is best not to talk about Free Software Licenses and Open Source/Creative Commons licenses at the same time if you're not talking as a consumer. They don't have much to do with other, other than that their development models are similar and that Open Source software will always be available over the same channels as Free Software.

Copyleft licenses like the GPL are very restrictive licenses that try to make sure that access to the code that they cover will never be restricted to a user of that code. They are an attempt to grant the rights that people should have to all code to enough code that one can accomplish one's goals without having to touch a locked-down black box, and to forbid the makers of locked-down black boxes from taking advantage of, embracing, extending, or extinguishing that code. The copyright holders of copyleft code are granting you that right of access and modification instead of the government. Open Source/Creative Commons has zero interest in that.

Open Source/Creative Commons are liberal licenses that allow anyone to do what they want, and make no (or very few and trivial) demands. You can take it and lock it behind any license. They are only compatible with copyleft licenses because copyleft licenses are part of the class "any license," not for any other reason.

mrob

While I mostly agree with this, it's inaccurate to say that Open Source Software is more liberal than Free Software. The issue of copyleft vs. permissive licenses is orthogonal to that classification. The difference between Free Software and Open Source is mostly that of intent: Free Software is primarily political, with Freedom being the ultimate goal, while Open Source is primarily practical, with high quality software being the ultimate goal. In practice, almost all software that meets the definition of one meets the definition of the other.

blendergeek

Rather than "political" vs "practical", I prefer to say, "social" vs "economic". Free Software is about helping your neighbor. Open Source is about cheaply producing a good.

Either one can produce high quality software.

827a

Free Software is for the people who build it. Great closed source companies become great through their ability to sell to many customers. Great free software projects become great through their ability to coordinate and integrate the contributions of many people. The larger the percentage of "people who have contributed something" to "people who use it", the healthier the project is (think of this as [C/(C+U)] where C=Contributors and U=Non-Contributing Users; every Contributor is a user).

The reality that you can use many free software projects without much contribution at all is a happy and good accident of the system; but a dangerous one that can and has been often-accidentally weaponized to burn out the actual contributors.