Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 11:28 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > Oh, this approach works just fine. +114 votes for my top comment that > killed the entire FUD of a super-active bunch of arguing: > > https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3e395n/why_i_am_progpl/ctb923f Nice! But I'd like to see you try somewhere more hostile than /r/linux, since there is still a sizable portion of copyleft supporters there (even though I admit most people there are Valve and Google apologists). Try asking the developers of a popular permissively licensed program if they want to relicense their program to GPLv3 on IRC and if you convince them using those arguments, only then will I be truly amazed.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 08:08 PM, Paul M wrote: > > Its important to realize that this is not actually an argument against > the GPL, even if its presented as one. > > As an example there are some proprietary programs I rely upon as > disability aids. There is no reasonable argument so say that I shouldn't > use them (if there is no suitable alternative) -- because to do so is to > say I should accept a form of discrimination (that, effectively, I > should accept a reduced ability to function in the world). > > However this should be seen as an argument for Free Software not against > this -- in order to deal with my disability I have to give up some > freedoms in a way that could also be argued is discriminatory. If you ask me, it should be _illegal_ to make any software that has medical purpose proprietary. > This is not a theoretical concern. One of the programs I most rely on > makes frequent network check-ins when it has no reason to do so and I > have no way of finding out what its doing (fortunately there is GPL'd > software I can use to block it). Have you tried Wireshark? > If it was GPL'd I would be able to find it out as well as better modify > to suit my needs vis a vis my disability, ensure it remains functional > if the developer abandons or changes it in a way that makes it no longer > functional etc. > > These are very important freedoms -- I rely on this software to be able > to hold down a job -- so my ability to deal with my disability is > effectively held ransom. I think your case is very important. Too often proprietary software creates B-class citizens and with free software, it's the users themselves who can decide the target audience, regardless of the intentions of the original developers. > People don't need to play video games in the way that I need disability > but there are similar arguments that can be made -- the problem of > abandonware comes immediately to mind, as well as perhaps developers > making unpopular changes that ignore players wishes. It's not that proprietary gaming isn't problematic - it has a lot of widely recognized issues, from the ones you mentioned to DRM and bugs that are never fixed - it's just that people want to play them regardless of it. > The argument that software developers needs to make money is an argument > about how society is organized economically. (As a side note an argument > about the need for a free market is very difficult to sustain when it > comes to disability: If I am unable to function fully because I am > denied access to software I need to hold a job it's no longer a free > market as I am being denied access to it). The biggest hypocrisy is that there are laws against discrimination in the workplace. I think that nobody at this point can argue that ours is a free market. Aside from the issue you mentioned, the monopolies are so big it is literally impossible to break into some fields, technology above all.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 02:10 PM, Fabio Pesari wrote: > On 02/29/2016 05:33 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> So, with this approach, we end the GPL / copyleft focus and the >> arguments then become about free software vs non-free broadly, and >> that's a further different argument to deal with. > > Excellent post as usual, Aaron! If someone is still interested in > writing the wiki, your post should be taken into consideration. > > I'd be curious to see someone go on an IRC channel or subreddit hostile > to the GPL, try this approach and report back (experiments don't count > as trolling, right?). > Oh, this approach works just fine. +114 votes for my top comment that killed the entire FUD of a super-active bunch of arguing: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3e395n/why_i_am_progpl/ctb923f > To be honest, I still expect some people to divert the discussion > somewhere else unrelated to copyleft. Fallacious arguments in my opinion > are the hardest to deal with, because they don't make sense but people > will buy into them. > > I also think most people who attack the GPL are not selfish, they merely > are scared to admit that they are perpetuating something unethical. I > think everybody who knows how to program is smart enough to understand > that proprietary software can easily be abused, so it's easier to sweep > the issue under the rug and say "hey, it's how everyone else does it". >
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 05:33 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > So, with this approach, we end the GPL / copyleft focus and the > arguments then become about free software vs non-free broadly, and > that's a further different argument to deal with. Excellent post as usual, Aaron! If someone is still interested in writing the wiki, your post should be taken into consideration. I'd be curious to see someone go on an IRC channel or subreddit hostile to the GPL, try this approach and report back (experiments don't count as trolling, right?). To be honest, I still expect some people to divert the discussion somewhere else unrelated to copyleft. Fallacious arguments in my opinion are the hardest to deal with, because they don't make sense but people will buy into them. I also think most people who attack the GPL are not selfish, they merely are scared to admit that they are perpetuating something unethical. I think everybody who knows how to program is smart enough to understand that proprietary software can easily be abused, so it's easier to sweep the issue under the rug and say "hey, it's how everyone else does it".
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Dealing with blind hatred for the GPL
On Sat, 2016-02-27 at 12:19 -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > > > Practice Rapaport's Rules here and everywhere: > > > > “First, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so > > clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says, ‘Thanks, I wish > > I’d thought of putting it that way.’ Then, you should list any points of > > agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread > > agreement), and third, you should mention anything you have learned from > > your opponent. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of > > rebuttal or criticism.” > > > > To clarify about Rapaport's Rules I just quoted, this approach is orders > of magnitude more persuasive and damning than others. Showing how much > you understand someone even better than they understand themselves and > then respectfully showing where they are wrong, this is the most > devastating critique you can make. I have heard a similar argument, which I like a lot, that you aren't arguing sincerely unless you can describe the circumstances in which your opponents argument would convince you to change your mind. Along these lines I think it might be persuasive to also gives examples of when we think another license might be better a choice than the GPL because it better serves the end of protecting user freedoms (which would counter arguments about zealotry etc). We have already seen the example here about licensing template files, where the FSF recommendation is to use a permissive license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WMS). Another I can think of is the example implementation of a (truly) open standard. Here I think a GPL compatible permissive license, CC0 etc would be the best choice as it allows the greatest number of different implementations. This could help protect users freedoms as it encourages widespread adoption of the standard while guaranteeing interoperability and allowing decentralization and the ability to run the software yourself etc (making certain assumptions about the contents of the standard). We have seen examples, in this regard, of large corporations deciding to open source parts of their proprietary software in order to try to preempt open standards that they did not control. For example a GPL compatible permissively licensed implementation of an OpenId alternative that addressed some of its perceived problems and was also decentralized and guaranteed interoperability might be preferable to F**k deciding to release the sign-on mechanism under the GPL as a "standard". The latter would be likely be heavily tied to their implementation of other services which are not GPL'd, likely very difficult, if not impossible to actually install and run yourself and could be useless if you did without a well specified way to point to your own server. It would also cede control of the "standard" to their control in a way that would allow them to freely change the implementation that meant other attempts to implement it are constantly out of sync and not in a position to persuade people to do otherwise since they did not have the great mass of existing users etc. Note, this is largely a strategic argument (in a way that the use of the LGPL can be). Paul M.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 12:05 +0100, Fabio Pesari wrote: > On 02/29/2016 11:18 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > > Very good, but not every person will respond like that > > One should be prepared for the worst case scenarios: that includes > taking into consideration emotional, irrational and ignorant arguments. > > Those are very common among both professional developers and casual > GNU/Linux users, and it's very easy for people to agree with them > because they feel good and don't require any introspection. > > For example, even if it seems downright childish and ridiculous, this is > the most commonly used counter-argument to GNU/Linux: > > "But I want to play videogames!" > Its important to realize that this is not actually an argument against the GPL, even if its presented as one. As an example there are some proprietary programs I rely upon as disability aids. There is no reasonable argument so say that I shouldn't use them (if there is no suitable alternative) -- because to do so is to say I should accept a form of discrimination (that, effectively, I should accept a reduced ability to function in the world). However this should be seen as an argument for Free Software not against this -- in order to deal with my disability I have to give up some freedoms in a way that could also be argued is discriminatory. This is not a theoretical concern. One of the programs I most rely on makes frequent network check-ins when it has no reason to do so and I have no way of finding out what its doing (fortunately there is GPL'd software I can use to block it). If it was GPL'd I would be able to find it out as well as better modify to suit my needs vis a vis my disability, ensure it remains functional if the developer abandons or changes it in a way that makes it no longer functional etc. These are very important freedoms -- I rely on this software to be able to hold down a job -- so my ability to deal with my disability is effectively held ransom. People don't need to play video games in the way that I need disability but there are similar arguments that can be made -- the problem of abandonware comes immediately to mind, as well as perhaps developers making unpopular changes that ignore players wishes. The argument that software developers needs to make money is an argument about how society is organized economically. (As a side note an argument about the need for a free market is very difficult to sustain when it comes to disability: If I am unable to function fully because I am denied access to software I need to hold a job it's no longer a free market as I am being denied access to it). Paul M
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
I haven't seen anyone bring up one of the most important and compelling GPL argument. Let me first clarify the foundations. You don't worry about what the person you're talking to has as their concerns, you talk about why they GPL serves the concerns of the people who use the GPL, and the frame their concerns honorably and not selfishly. Keep these factors in mind: GPL-FUD person is, in this case, not the dogmatic anarchist BSD person but is an apologist for proprietary software, keep that in mind. GPL-FUD person is apologist for corporate or proprietary power if they promote the quality of proprietary software, games or otherwise. GPL-FUD person is self-centered if they are focused on their own desire to use GPL software in proprietary software whether for themselves or as employee of proprietary developer. So, this GPL-FUD person projects their apologetics and selfishness onto others. If they see makers of GPL software as selfish as well, they are annoyed at them but they relate. They may focus on the ways that companies abuse the GPL in order to push proprietary licensing (like the MySQL approach). They otherwise think that GPL software developers are wanting to get code back because the developer selfishly wants all the code contributions to flow back upstream. So, here's the argument: "The GPL isn't an upstream license. It doesn't actually require anyone to ever share code back upstream. Although in practice the GPL *can* help get code back upstream, which is why some people like Linus Torvalds like the GPL, the primary mechanism of the GPL is *downstream*. The developers [whether that's you or someone else] using GPL aren't doing it to serve their own selfish interests. They are saying, 'I wrote this software, and I give it to you under these free terms on the condition that you will pass on the freedoms to others.' People who use the GPL don't want just software to exist, they want it to be under free terms for others, and they use the GPL to assure that people downstream have freedom. It's not written for the benefit of upstream developers but for the benefit of downstream users." The point of this argument is that most developers who have to accept this have to realize that the GPL isn't *meant* to serve *their* interests. Thus, if they complain about that fact, it's not only something we already know, it's just them being selfish. And we're showing that the developers who use GPL aren't being selfish but are being honorable and caring for others. It boils down to: "using the GPL comes from the motivation of doing the right thing for other people". Now, if a developer replies by saying "I don't care about downstream freedom, the GPL is in my way" then it's easy to say "well, you're just being selfish". Most people won't even admit to being selfish when they are confronted with unselfish people. If they admit to their own selfishness, they will try to find ways to insist that everyone else must actually be just as selfish somehow. That gets into a different argument. In most cases, the response to this "GPL is a downstream license" argument is that it actually serves the downstream people *better* to let them get the more advanced but proprietary software or that the end users won't appreciate or care about their freedoms from GPL. We should accept that *that* argument has enough merit to not just be FUD, and thus we then need to engage in reasoned discussion about that claim. We can share real (ideally not hypothetical) stories of how GPL freedoms *does* matter to downstream folks, especially if they are not programmers, because that shows the importance. One story of mine about how I used Encore music notation software, the company went out of business, software got outdated and incompatible, and I lost my tools despite tons of people loving the software and wanting it to continue, and today with MuseScore being GPL, I don't have to worry about it disappearing because some company screws up. The community can always pick it up and continue anyway. We should accept that the argument "GPL software won't actually compete, so it serves end-users better to just do whatever to help software be better regardless of freedoms" is itself not just FUD but a reasonable position that we can't just dismiss easily. In my case, I get to say, "that's a good point, there may be some truth there. It's not always that case, but that's a real concern. This unfortunate trade-off is a huge problem, which is why I'm working on Snowdrift.coop to try to solve this dilemma." And that almost always gets people on board because nobody can say they are opposed to end users having freedom *and* great quality software made by adequately paid developers. In the end, as long as the critics accept that GPL is a *downstream* license and the motivation of those who use the GPL is to pass on freedoms downstream, then the entire discussion has to be about *that* motivation and whether GPL is effective at serving it or
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 01:10 PM, Yui Hirasawa wrote: > Sure they might later bring up money. But I don't think we should be the > ones to do that when the discussion is about freedom and "restrictions". I didn't suggest that, I merely said that a developer that philosophically agrees with copyleft might say he doesn't use the GPL because of monetary concerns. I've seen it happen plenty of times, and it's one of the biggest obstacles actually, because many developers recognize all our arguments as valid but still reject them. We can't call them "greedy" because it's understandable that at least some of them might need to actually feed themselves and their families. I've never found a way around this, honestly. Appeals to emotions are fallacies but we aren't talking about debates here, we're talking about convincing people to support the GPL, and for many money talks. That's why I said I hope Snowdrift (a nonprofit crowdfunding initiative) succeeds - corporations won't fund most GPL code, true, but users perhaps will (I don't think so, honestly, but I prefer being optimistic).
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
>> This discussion wasn't about making money. It's about freedom to do >> whatever you want with other people's code, even making it proprietary. > >But the point is that people make it about money pretty soon, and that >it's an argument that needs to be addressed anyway. Sure they might later bring up money. But I don't think we should be the ones to do that when the discussion is about freedom and "restrictions".
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 12:43 PM, Yui Hirasawa wrote: > > This discussion wasn't about making money. It's about freedom to do > whatever you want with other people's code, even making it proprietary. But the point is that people make it about money pretty soon, and that it's an argument that needs to be addressed anyway. Simply saying "it's not about money" is not a solution, especially when there are cases of GPL projects relicensed to proprietary because of it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/29/robovm_open_source_not_working_for_us/
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 29/02/16 12:05, Fabio Pesari wrote: > On 02/29/2016 11:18 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> >> Very good, but not every person will respond like that > > One should be prepared for the worst case scenarios: that includes > taking into consideration emotional, irrational and ignorant arguments. > > Those are very common among both professional developers and casual > GNU/Linux users, and it's very easy for people to agree with them > because they feel good and don't require any introspection. > > For example, even if it seems downright childish and ridiculous, this is > the most commonly used counter-argument to GNU/Linux: > > "But I want to play videogames!" > > I still haven't found an answer for that because it's true that most > libre games are crap and decades behind mainstream titles, and > suggesting that freedom is more valuable than entertainment never > convinced any of those people. > That actually contains a big clue We need to focus on identifying each person's values and not expect everybody to have values. E.g. some doctors will want to keep their patient data private because it is the right thing to do. Some will do it because of the commercial incentive (not wanting a rogue employee of the IT company to sell a customer list to a rival). Some will only want to keep patient data private because of the big penalty fines that doctors now face for data breaches. The first step is to use questions to identify the person's values. Then match the argument to their values While it sounds trivial, salespeople are usually trained to identify one of these things that each customer values most: career, family, hobby. Once they identify the most important one, they may try to talk about it or even relate their message to it (e.g. "do you think you might have a third child? Have you seen this larger model car...") Even if this only helps for 1 out of 5 discussions, just forget the other 4 and don't be demotivated, you can't win every time. > We're talking about a society that is eagerly waiting for Oculus Rift (a > Facebook product) to engage in virtual "sex". The problems at the root > of proprietary software adoption are very, very deep, and completely > unrelated to rationality - I would say moral, but I know some people > here don't like that word or its connotations, so I think we can safely > agree that most people want to be comfortable more than they want to be > free, and few give a crap about things like ethics, security and privacy. > >> Do you feel that the idea of making up questions like this is useful in >> comparison to just having statements to use as responses? > > I think one should imagine every possible response and > counter-response. Right now shutting up a free software supporter is > very easy, as we get easily frustrated by arguments like the ones I > shared before and quit. > This is just a matter of training and practice For example, lawyers often spend hours with their clients practicing questions and answers for court cases. That is how they look so convincing and respond so effortlessly in the heat of the moment. Regards, Daniel
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 11:18 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Very good, but not every person will respond like that One should be prepared for the worst case scenarios: that includes taking into consideration emotional, irrational and ignorant arguments. Those are very common among both professional developers and casual GNU/Linux users, and it's very easy for people to agree with them because they feel good and don't require any introspection. For example, even if it seems downright childish and ridiculous, this is the most commonly used counter-argument to GNU/Linux: "But I want to play videogames!" I still haven't found an answer for that because it's true that most libre games are crap and decades behind mainstream titles, and suggesting that freedom is more valuable than entertainment never convinced any of those people. We're talking about a society that is eagerly waiting for Oculus Rift (a Facebook product) to engage in virtual "sex". The problems at the root of proprietary software adoption are very, very deep, and completely unrelated to rationality - I would say moral, but I know some people here don't like that word or its connotations, so I think we can safely agree that most people want to be comfortable more than they want to be free, and few give a crap about things like ethics, security and privacy. > Do you feel that the idea of making up questions like this is useful in > comparison to just having statements to use as responses? I think one should imagine every possible response and counter-response. Right now shutting up a free software supporter is very easy, as we get easily frustrated by arguments like the ones I shared before and quit.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 10:54 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > "Have you ever had a program that didn't just work exactly the way you > wanted though?" "Yes, but that also happens with FOSS programs. Even if a program is open and in theory I could modify it, I can't program, so it's the same." or "Even so, from my experience, proprietary programs always work better than FOSS ones. I work in web design and GIMP can't still open PSD files properly after so many years, and lacks many features (like content-aware fill) compared to it." > "If a program appears to `just work' but has a data leak, is it really > working?" "If it does what I want then yes, who cares? Everybody is being spied on anyway, and I have nothing to hide."
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 29/02/16 10:33, Fabio Pesari wrote: > On 02/29/2016 10:10 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> >> Back to the theme of making the rebuttals conversational, another good >> one could be: >> >> "Companies don't like the GPL" >> >> "Isn't that a good sign that the GPL is good for you as a user of >> technology? Would you really expect companies to like a license that >> gives you choice and control?" > > "No, what's good for me as a user is a program that just works, > regardless if it's GPL or not." > "Have you ever had a program that didn't just work exactly the way you wanted though?" "If a program appears to `just work' but has a data leak, is it really working?" > Also, your answer assumes companies to be inherently evil, a position > which most people don't share (most people actually _love_ Apple and > Google). > It is not an "answer", it is just a way to engage in discussion by using questions I agree that directly attacking brands or companies is not helpful, unless the user has already said something to indicate they don't like the company.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages
On 02/29/2016 02:12 AM, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > So I'd bet other proprietors are in a similar position: they don't mind the > GPL when they're the copyright holder and they can't effectively relicense > a GPL'd program without competing against their own code. But they complain > when they're the licensee (such as GitHub's Tom Preston-Werner claiming the > GPL is "too restrictive"[2] while the GPL apparently didn't stop him and > others from building a lucrative business around git, which is licensed > under the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1). Well, that's not true for all companies: Google outright bans the AGPL even for their own products. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ Also, most GPL violations happen because of Android, a Google product. Github is likely the one to blame for most free software shifting to lax licenses: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/282759/6517300/9dc14536-c367-11e4-9a63-b23a3d75af78.png As well as poorly educating people about licenses so much, many people are actually not including any licensing info, making their projects proprietary: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/282759/6517301/9dc26d44-c367-11e4-9eca-2e99e7c92387.png
