Github is proprietary software. Why it's used to support the figher against proprietary software?

[amarao]

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2015-12/msg00168.html

GitHub does things that are quite bad for free software and is
not interested in changing them.

[brown121407]

It makes sense from a popularity standpoint, since GitHub is the most used software forge, it may also bring the most signatures. But I would also like if there was a way to contribute to this with free software. SourceHut would have been a more appropriate place for this, but I don't know how much traction it would have gained then.

[nukeop]

This was in 2015. Today, Github allows you sign the letter using only free software. And it's also good for publicity.

[jdoe0000000]

Would it be possible to also allow signers to send an email to request that their signatures be added? The anti-rms repo is doing that too.

This was in 2015. Today, Github allows you sign the letter using only free software. And it's also good for publicity.

@nukeop: I'm not aware that this is possible. Would you mind pointing out where I can find information on how to do this?

[Areso]

@jdoe0000000
try this one:
https://docs.github.com/en/github/authenticating-to-github/signing-commits

[brown121407]

@nukeop, @jdoe0000000

I was skeptical of the claim that you can sign the letter using only free software. I created a fork, cloned it locally, made the commit, and sent a pull request from GNU Guix's IceCat with LibreJS enabled, so I guess @nukeop was right. You can sign it using only free software, if "free software" includes GitHub after LibreJS blocks its non-free scripts.

[jdoe0000000]

try this one:
https://docs.github.com/en/github/authenticating-to-github/signing-commits

@Areso
That's for making cryptographically signed commits, not for making commits to add your signature to the support letter.

[jdoe0000000]

@brown121407 That's good to know. Thanks for finding this out!

[nukeop]

@nukeop, @jdoe0000000

I was skeptical of the claim that you can sign the letter using only free software. I created a fork, cloned it locally, made the commit, and sent a pull request from GNU Guix's IceCat with LibreJS enabled, so I guess @nukeop was right. You can sign it using only free software, if "free software" includes GitHub after LibreJS blocks its non-free scripts.

You can use Github CLI if you don't want to run non-free javascript.

[amarao]

You can use Github CLI

Which is pure 'contrib' section for Debian, not 'main', because github cli is completely useless without proprietary server code.

[appetrosyan]

IF you are so inclined, I still have a GitLab repository. It's purely a backup, in case Microsoft decides to take this one down!

[nukeop]

You can use Github CLI

Which is pure 'contrib' section for Debian, not 'main', because github cli is completely useless without proprietary server code.

It's ok if server code is proprietary since you're not running it yourself. This doesn't violate any of the GPL freedoms.

[KOLANICH]

Client code is also proprietary, and carries a browser fingerprinting script they call a "CAPTCHA". It is completely inacceptable.

[Motophan]

Can we try asking rms?

[nataraj-hates-MS-for-stealing-github]

I agree with issue starter.

I am very unhappy that i had_to use github account to sign this

[nukeop]

Client code is also proprietary, and carries a browser fingerprinting script they call a "CAPTCHA". It is completely inacceptable.

Client code works with LibreJS. And you can always use the MIT-licensed github cli.

[KOLANICH]

So, what do you propose?

Not to use GPL, AGPL, GFDL and even LGPL (at least for languages like C, if headers are not licensed separately under a permissive license). Try to stay away of the code (usually libs, but also file formats, if there is no permissive impl) under LGPL, GPL and AGPL. Try to persuade people not to use GPL.

[Aspie96]

if headers are not licensed separately under a permissive license

Please read THE WHOLE LGPL.
Don't judge a license by some summary you read once.

[KOLANICH]

Thanks. Reread them again, it seems that using LGPLed libs is OK.

[6r1d]

Not to use GPL, AGPL, GFDL and even LGPL
Try to persuade people not to use GPL.

And what good will that bring, tactically or strategically?

And this sounds like a defeatist thinking to me, so I totally disagree.

[KOLANICH]

And what good will that bring, tactically or strategically?

Both tactically and strategically. Less people will be relied on copyright system. Less people will pretend that copyright is good. Less people will get losses from abolishing copyright, so less of them would have incentives to vote for keeping copyright. Using GPL-like licenses will become a marker "I wanna look like a FOSSie, but wanna extort like a proprietarian" (in fact it already is, but there is large enough chance that a person was just misleaded, to determine his reall attitude to copyright one has to ask him to relicense under another license, and often the response contains clearly pro-copyright statements). It was "strategically".

Tactically:

• if someone proposes something, he must start from himself. If one proposes abolition of copyright, he mustn't himself rely on copyright. Otherwise his words are insincere and he deserves no trust.
• more non-gpl projects means less reinvention of wheel and less fragmented ecosystem (though one can argue that a heavily fragmented ecosystem is good, it is not).

[6r1d]

Less people will be relied on copyright system

I believe this is shortsighted. The lack of license means you don't give others any rights to your program whatsoever in many countries. To push changes you need to show flaws in copyright to as many people as you can, especially if they have any influence and can spread the message. Which is kinda what RMS did.

Using GPL-like licenses will become a marker "I wanna look like a FOSSie, but wanna extort like a proprietarian"

It exists for decades. We are talking about an old, widely adopted idea. Give it some credit.

he must start from himself

Did I see unlicense in one of your repos? You can try doing that and continue that. Especially in big, popular projects. I won't agree with you completely at this point, but that's an action.

more non-gpl projects means less reinvention of wheel and less fragmented ecosystem

Same with more GPL projects. More integrated stuff and more widely adopted Unix approach.

[Tyil]

Right, there's no decent discussion to be had with @KOLANICH, he just wants to be angry and pretend he's the only smart person on the entire planet. I'm out, and I'll stick to using AGPL wherever I can ;)

[KOLANICH]

The lack of license means you don't give others any rights to your program whatsoever in many countries.

That's why I use Unlicense.

To push changes you need to show flaws in copyright to as many people as you can, especially if they have any influence and can spread the message. Which is kinda what RMS did.

Yes. But not by GPL, but by other activity.

It exists for decades.

Gangs exist for decades. DPRK and PRC exist for decades.

We are talking about an old, widely adopted idea. Give it some credit.

The fact the idea is old doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Did I see unlicense in one of your repos?

If you visited my GH profile (and orgs owned by me, I have moved the most of my repos into orgs because there are too much of them in the main profile) and filter out forks, you would see that most of my repos use "Unlicense" license.

Same with more GPL projects. More integrated stuff and more widely adopted Unix approach.

No. Permissive licenses mean one is allowed to use any license he likes in own software. GPL means one must use GPL. This way GPL is a war against all other licenses.

[dzhigit1]

No. Permissive licenses mean one is allowed to use any license he likes in own software. GPL means one must use GPL. This way GPL is a war against all other licenses.

Proprietary licenses do not allow sub licensing either. So what is wrong with GPL?

[Areso]

Many of the hardware protocols are open, stuff gets more and more documented, many scopes of said blobs are limited, it's not that terrible, and besides, stuff like Noveau drivers for Nvidia is developed.

Opensource drives are mess. I tried ones with my GTX 750 Ti, then with 1050 Ti, half of the games are failed to run/work properly. So it is working, but not very good. Not good enough. But still thanks to enthusiasts.
Any chances to run a Linux distro on a cheap laptop with Wi-Fi, bluetooth, sleep, hybernate, fingerprint scanner? Okay it was easy question, chances are good. Not 100% though.
Any chances to run a modern Linux distro with modern Kernel on a cheap tablet, which came with Windows / Android? With all the stuff, including all above, and the hardware GPU acceleration? Atom's GPUs were PITA for a decade long, may be even longer. GPUs from ARM SoCs are entirely mess.

Seriously? I think you're ignoring quite a bit of context for decades there.

GPL doesn't (didn't) do the virus magic with those things.
And enthusiasts, well, they could choose every license they wanna use. If the first person in the chain of driver-writing select the MIT/BSD license, then it would be this. And no special-especial magic attached behind the choosing or behind the following work.
Even for big projects with a big number of contributors GPL is not always a good choice. But for lesser projects - I am sure the license doesn't give a hint of usefullness.

[KOLANICH]

Proprietary licenses do not allow sub licensing either. So what is wrong with GPL?

What could be wrong with in a large part a proprietary license?

[dzhigit1]

Proprietary licenses do not allow sub licensing either. So what is wrong with GPL?

What could be wrong with in a large part a proprietary license?

The only reason to change from GPL is to make it proprietary. (Or to use a crap free software license like 4 clause BSD that is incompatible with GPL due to the advertising clause.) So, can you give an example of one possible reason you might want to change from GPL, if not to make it non-free?

[6r1d]

What could be wrong with in a large part a proprietary license?

And now you're replacing "Copyleft" with "Proprietary". ;-)

[6r1d]

Opensource drives are mess. I tried ones with my GTX 750 Ti, then with 1050 Ti

I'm using NVidia from time to time myself. I even write this text from a computer with an NVidia video card. And I don't like the proprietary driver either. Don't waste time on arguing what sort of garbage is better, NVidia tends to mess up.

Any chances to run a modern Linux distro with modern Kernel on a cheap tablet, which came with Windows / Android?

Reminder: I'm here to fix the situation with RMS, not to support anyone who had issues with their tablet. Yes, those are closed. And no, it's not a Linux problem. Linux will be an easier system to port there, should there be a financial incentive.

[Areso]

I'm here to fix the situation with RMS

Well, in that case you could stop participating in the activities, since he kinda apologized and kept his position. At least, for now.
So, the petition may be worked out as it supposed to.

not to support anyone who had issues with their tablet.

It is how a disscussion works: starts with one subject and then, based on examples and tricks, it starts drift off somewhere else. Sometimes - entirely. Back to the tablets: I don't ask for help, I just indicated, there are 'classes' of devices, where GNU/Linux distros doesn't work properly. Why it doesn't work properly? Because GPL is not a silver bullet. Especially, with the topic. In my opinion, it is not virusable enough. You may use blobs with a kernel and it is okayish practice, acceptable by the license. So, the license is not good enough to prevent this situation happen

Finally,

Many of the hardware protocols are open, stuff gets more and more documented, many scopes of said blobs are limited, it's not that terrible, and besides, stuff like

Just a cheap talk for either enthusiasts or for poors.
Not always the documentation even exists
Not always it exists in English (there is should be a funny/sad joke about Chinese hardware makers)
Not always it is descriptive, fully enough
Not always is open and free to use without signing a deal with a Devil
Not always it is free of charge.

Let's I have (had) a printer, which was sold in dozens millions units. Canon LBP 2900, if I remember correct. The driver, should it exists, should be simple enough. Or documentation. Not compatible with GPU drivers, for a reference, in terms of complexcity.
Whatever - it was PITA to run it within popular Linux distros.

[dzhigit1]

Proprietary licenses do not allow sub licensing either. So what is wrong with GPL?

What could be wrong with in a large part a proprietary license?

The only reason to change from GPL is to make it proprietary. (Or to use a crap free software license like 4 clause BSD that is incompatible with GPL due to the advertising clause.) So, can you give an example of one possible reason you might want to change from GPL, if not to make it non-free?

[Aspie96]

You must distribute the combined program under the GPL.

No.

It applies to anything which is considered a derived work under copyright law.

The GPL does not define what a derived work is, the law does.

Also notice that the GPL doesn't really care about whether the work is a program. It uses the word "Program" but it means whatever the licensed work is.

But your sources, separate from the GPL lib, remain available under the GPL compatible license.

That depends on whether such sources are considered a derived work of the GPL library or not. In other words it depends on whether creating such sources requires, by itself, a copyright license from the author of the library.

Whether that is the case or not is an open question, although an important one.

For instance, Python programs typically don't include libraries, which are downloaded separately by the user. Are they derived works of the libraries they are designed to use and of which they call the API?
If yes they are affected by the GPL.
If no then their license can be any including non free ones.

[Aspie96]

Here is where the FSF explictly states you can use a compatible license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

If a certain work is not under copyright law a derived work of anything under the GPL, then you can license it however you want.

What the GPL says becomes irrelevant and your license does not even have to be compatible with the GPL at all.

It's clear the FSF has opinions about what constitutes a derived work of a GPLd library but ultimately what matters is what the license says.

From the link it appears that the modules themselves aren't seen as a derived work by the FSF while the program as a whole is and thus must be released under the GPL. The modules themselves having a compatible license is a corollary of that.

Whether parts of a program calling a GPL library are a derived work and indeed even whether dynamic linking leads to creating a derived work is however not really clear.

[dzhigit1]

It applies to anything which is considered a derived work under copyright law.

The GPL does not define what a derived work is, the law does.

And is there a single jurisdiction where a work not using a library is considered a derived work of that library? If the Unlicense software is distributed without the GPL dependency, it does not have to be GPL.

Also notice that the GPL doesn't really care about whether the work is a program. It uses the word "Program" but it means whatever the licensed work is.

Well according to FSF, GPLv3 can be used for lots of things including hardware designs, while GPLv2 is software specific.

That depends on whether such sources are considered a derived work of the GPL library or not.

They are not. If your software is separate from the GPL lib, it is not considered a derived work.

For instance, Python programs typically don't include libraries, which are downloaded separately by the user. Are they derived works of the libraries they are designed to use and of which they call the API?

Yes, they are derived works. It applies the same to interpreters and compilers.

Whether parts of a program calling a GPL library are a derived work and indeed even whether dynamic linking leads to creating a derived work is however not really clear.

Well, I am not a lawyer, but what I am describing is how all relevant parties including the authors of the GPL, all large free and open source projects including the Linux kernel, and for-profit corporations use the GPL.

[dzhigit1]

@KOLANICH You will 100% not run in to any legal trouble from sharing that Unlicense software.

[KOLANICH]

You will 100% not run in to any legal trouble from sharing that Unlicense software.

146.47% more precisely, I guess?

If your software is separate from the GPL lib, it is not considered a derived work.

That tool is not separate. It uses KSC jar in 2 different ways.

1. its CLI backend uses the JAR. Without the jar all that python wrapping makes no sense.
2. its JVM backend that has never been published and is currently used privately "links" into the compiler binary.

Since the python package is valuable if and only if its JVM counterpart exists and since there is no permissively-licensed fully-functional replacement of KSC used exactly the same way (so we cannot claim the python package was targeted to be used with that impl instead of the original one), it is clearly a derivative work.

While the python package uses KSC via its CLI - the interface it is intended to be used with by its authors - it is not a GPL violation to share such a plugin under a permissive license.

But the fact of release of the JVM plugin would have change the situation. Then the JVM backend must clearly be licensed under GPL.

FSF FAQ says that GPLed plugins are not allowed to a "proprietary" (but the license terms don't distinguish between proprietary software and FOSS that is not GPLed) software. The backend itself, which is a plugin for the core, must be GPLed, so must be the whole app using the backend (including the stuff that is currently under Unlicense), according to FSF biased (I understand their biases, their goal is to cause as much software as possible to be GPLed, so their interpretation is just the one serving their goal) interpretation (of course the real interpretation that applies is determined by the judge decision in a lawsuit, everything else is wishful thinking). The lib is itself a plugin for setuptools, which is NOT GPLed (and it is good thing, don't try to blame them for not using GPL, it is the ones who use GPL are liable of the situation), so spreading it in this case would be a copyright violation itself. setuptools is used in wide a lot of projects and it is completely inacceptable and crazy to require them all to be relicensed under GPL.

[Aspie96]

I think you guys are misunderstanding what sublicensing means.

Permissive licenses also can forbit sublicensing

[dzhigit1]

I see. I think I misunderstood it.

[franpoli]

The recently announced closed project Copilot has a questionable ethic. It features spywares such as telemetry and instant code scanning. From my understanding, it also autocompletes your code with suggestions pick-uped from the GitHub asset without clearly specifying the source nor the license for the injected code.