If somebody says they cannot use wallpapers on other operating systems, just give them a thumbs up and move on.

Why would you want to recruit such a person.

Debain and Fedora are 100% free software operating systems.

Point at a single package in either one that is proprietary software.

Driver firmware does not count. Why? Because that is hardware. The hardware is proprietary regardless and there is proprietary firmware in my hardware regardless of what my OS does.

None of the operating systems listed run on “free” hardware, so arguing about how free the non-free hardware is is meaningless.

Calling Debian and Fedora “closed source” or “black box” because they distribute firmware is madness. Hardware that cannot be updated at all is less “black box”? If that is your view, your opinions hold no weight with me at all.

Fedora and Debian are 100% free operating systems that only include free software.

The FSF does not like them because they include non-free firmware.

The debate is entirely how you define what is software and what is hardware.

Idealism is fine.

Braindead self-denial less so.

How is proprietary firmware that cannot be updated superior?

The line the FSF draws between what is hardware and what is software is total nonsense

The FSF should stick to software so they can maintain the completely hard line that you value. That can apply to actual software.

There should maybe be a Free Hardware Foundation too (maybe a sister or sub-project). If that existed though, they would have to reject pretty much all the hardware that all of us use, including the hardware that the operating systems in this list were designed to run on. Because they are all completely proprietary regardless of their firmware update policies.

I would love a FHF. Let’s all use open schematic, RISC-V systems with open source firmware. Yes please!

But let’s stop doing dumb shit like refusing to update the microcode on our Intel CPU and pretending that is more free instead of just more dumb.

The way why the FSF approaches firmware today is totally braindead (in my view).

No. You don’t get it.

You have to switch to hardware that keeps its firmware safely hidden inside so we can call it “hardware”. If you let the firmware be updated, now it is “software” and it has to be free. But you can run in whatever “hardware” you want and be totally free.

Never upgrading your CPU firmware is a bad idea. Most of the people saying that “works for them” have no idea what they are talking about. Yea, your system runs. Congratulations.

And they are still running on proprietary firmware. Just outdated firmware that they refuse to update.

It is just such utter nonsense. It makes my brain hurt.

We need purists like the fsf.

I do not mind that they are purists. On this issue, my problem is that the line they draw between open and proprietary is an entirely meaningless one and yet the act as absolutist about it as everything else.

I do not mind that they are “pure”. I dislike that what they are saying is wrong (inaccurate, not morally wrong).

The operating system and up seems like a totally resonance place to draw the line for Free Software. I mean “software” is right in the name.

Making a big deal about firmware is asking me to pretend I do not know how hardware works and ignore that I am actually using totally proprietary tech regardless. And classifying hardware that is more open as less free just jumps the shark completely. It hear no evil, see no evil nonsense that demands that I never ask questions or look behind the curtain.

The reduction in proprietary hardware that results from those systems is not meaningful in my view while the massive reduction in security and the greater inconvenience matter.

People have no idea how their hardware works. A card from NVIDIA has not just the NVIDIA drivers but a bunch of internal systems with additional firmware. Even your CPU may have an entire OS on it.

Hardware that allows its firmware to be updated is more open, not less, even if I currently only have proprietary firmware to load on it. And at least it can be updated. Simply not letting me upgrade the firmware does not magically make the hardware more open. Not allowing proprietary firmware for an open source operating system is just not an idea that resonates with me.

Would I prefer fully open source hardware and firmware? Yes. I am happy to see these options are slowly developing. In the meantime, we all run our software on proprietary hardware and drawing the line between hardware and software at a less convenient or less secure point is not making me any more free.

At least, that is my opinion man.

We disagree and you have not addressed my points. So let me stress them.

corporations are allowed publish a modified version of the software while restricting their code modifications from release to the community.

Again, totally agree. Under a permissive license , they do not have to share their work if they do not want to.

Permissive license benefits corporations more than the community.

How? We both have access to the exact same code. We can license our modifications as we wish including GPL or proprietary. They can do the same. We mutually benefit when we choose the original license.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, permissive licenses tend to attract more corporate contribution (and collaboration between corporations). That benefits me a lot.

Google probably has an “extended” version of Clang internally. That is ok with me. I enjoy the substantial code that they do share with me. Same with Microsoft and Apple that collaborate in the same project. I enjoy innovations like Rust and Zig that get built on top. I enjoy FreeBSD that uses it and my main distro Chimera Linux that uses it as well.

I seem to benefit quite a lot.

pikachu face when they realize the corporations are legally permitted to take the fruit of their labor from them

Hard to know how to respond here. Corporations can use you code under any Open Source license, including copyleft (GPL). They do not get one line extra from you because it is permissively licensed.

I guess I will say “pikachu face” when corporations realize that I can take their permissive code and use it for free for any purpose or even compete directly against them! And I can combine their code with any code I want including proprietary and GPL! And I I think preventing this kind of thing is the main reason Red Hat likes the GPL (you know, the biggest Open Source corporation).

My time and effort has been lost. The fruit of my labor has been lost.

How? Real question. How is that statement accurate?

You put time and effort into advancing an Open Source project. All of that code is still there. It can be modified, studied, enhanced, and shared. What code is available to you and what you can do with it is entirely unchanged when a corporation adds proprietary code on top of it. You have not gained their code, true. But you have not lost yours. And you can keep anything they gave you previously (or in the future). Nothing has been lost.

When i contribute or make to a Free Software project, i wish for it to benefit the community

And it does. All “4 freedoms” for example. Permissive or copyleft the same.

If corporations want to release a software based on modified version of my code, I want a guarantee that the modified code to be available to the community too.

Ah. Ok. Ya, permissive licenses don’t do that. It sounds like you will prefer copyleft licenses if this is something you want. Fine of course. But it has nothing to do with your other points. As I said, I fully support the idea of copyleft licenses. You should be free to license your work as you wish.

Do what you want. That is not what everybody wants though. I hope you can respect that.

Corporations that take things and enshittify them

Well, if that is what they are going to do, thank God they did not contribute the enshitification to the Open Source repos. We can go on using the Open Source version because it is better and we like the freedom. Sounds like a point in favour of permissive licenses to me.

all the while they get rich

How does this happen unless their version is better? And how is it better unless it is their changes that made it better?

It sounds like what we are really upset about is companies making better software than us and not letting us use it. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you are trying to say happens.

But again, nobody can take the Open Source away. It is still there untarnished. It may not be enhanced by their efforts but it is not harmed either.

What you are saying is, if they extend the Open Source software, you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs. Because only when you use theirs do you lose any freedom. That is true collectively for “the community”.

Your choice your prerogative.

Finally. We agree.

Almost certainly just somebody that distrusts all business by default.

I am all for holding business to account but can we not acknowledge that much of what we love in our lives would not be possible without business?

Kagi is not my friend or anything but they seem like a pretty decent company to me. I have seen no reason to be so cynical about them.

I do not use Fedora and you can consider the opinion above a valid downvote. I just want to weigh in that it seems far too extreme so do not read too much into that.

I used Fedora in the distant past and try it from time to time. It is fine and completely normal as a distro. Given its support for SELinux, it is fairly secure.

I agree with the last sentence. Do not be afraid of making the wrong choice. Distro differences are minor compared to the switch you are making and mostly a matter of preference. It is easy to switch once you know more (if you even want to).

Awesome.

Not installing Plasma from the default repos on Debian Stable though obviously.

When I say “Debian”, I mean “Debian Stable” which is what I think most people mean when they Debian without qualification.

The GPL does nothing for MY freedom.

Freedom to have sex with somebody against their will is not a “freedom” for me. It is subjugation for them. Something does not become a “freedom” simply because it benefits me.

The right to eat crops grown by others is not a “freedom”. It is an entitlement.

That said, there is nothing immoral, unethical, or wrong about me growing crops and providing seeds to others on the condition that they share the resulting crops with me or even with everyone. This is a contract and hopefully a mutually beneficial one. All good as long as the terms are known up-front and all parties consent.

In my view, that last paragraph is the GPL. There is nothing wrong with it at all. However, it does not make either party to the contact “more free”. In fact, you a bit less free in the future when you agree to a contact, because you have to abide by its terms. But at least you got there freely.

Permissive licenses are not a contract. They are a gift. They make no demands. They take away no freedom at all.

Both are valid choices. I have no quarrel with somebody choosing the GPL.

I do not agree that permissive licenses are less free or that the GPL is moreso.

If it was truly about MY freedom, choosing a permissive license would not upset you.

Are you willing to provide unpaid labor for corporations?

When I release code as Open Source, I am providing unpaid labour to everyone. My work is a public good. Like science.

I welcome collaboration from everyone (including corporations). That is the spirit of Open Source.

I do not demand it. That is the nature of freedom.

they are not obligated to release the modified code under the same license

Agreed

the community receives nothing back for their labor.

The community has the source code that has been released as Open Source. That is what results from their labour. They can continue to collaborate and improve it. What they have “for their labor” is totally unmodified. Nothing has been lost. Possibly, nothing has been gained. This is not unique to corporations. The vast majority of the users of the code will contribute back nothing.

As it turns out, corporations are a major (majority) source of Open Source software and so it is their labor that we all benefit from. This is true for both permissive and copyleft licenses. And, true to form, few of us give anything back.

[the GPL] obligates that the modified code must be released as GPL

Agreed.

So GPL guarantees that the community benefits.

We disagree big picture.

First, I see a world with greater freedom as a benefit on its own.

Second, I think the GPL discourages corporate contribution. Corporations write most Open Source software. The GPL does not prevent natural monopolies in Open Source. Red Hat has enormous influence over Linux as a platform and all of free software as a whole. The GPL does not stop this and may in fact contribute. There is a reason it is their preferred license for the considerable amount if software that they write. In my view, better communities develop around permissive licenses. Just like, my opinion man.

Third, the GPL shrinks ecosystems and restricts my ability to build on and share code. I cannot combine ZFS and Linux. I could if either one (or both) was permissively licensed. That is a loss of freedom for ME.

The act of choosing a license political one

Totally agree.

I also think that the number one way that corporations profit from code without giving back is to sell it as a service. And the GPL does not help with this at all.

Adding to this, Google created Android, wrote all the source code, and released it as Open Source.

By definition, Google cannot take anything here. It is only a question of what they give way in the future.

What Google wants is for people to use Google services. So they are making that less and less optional. There is no way for them to mandate this in Open Source and so they are shrinking the size of AOSP.

Online “services” are the greatest threat to software freedom. What kind of license is used has little to do with it.

Since this is a “GPL saves the world” thread, how would the GPL change anything? Android is mostly permissively licensed. But let’s assume that it is all GPL. Since we are talking about code Google wrote, nothing changes at all.

And the Linux kernel is already GPL licensed. Does that mean I can run whatever I want on my phone?

No. The threats to freedom in the Android space have literally nothing to do with permissive vs copyleft.

Do you think IBM wouldn’t make Red Hat completely proprietary if they had the chance?

No. I don’t. For quite a few reasons.

1 - Red Hat has released new software (quite a lot actually) that they wrote, as GPL since the IBM purchase (rather directly refuting your thought experiment)

2 - A huge amount of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is permissively licensed. They have the chance every day to make this proprietary. They don’t. Again, answering your question.

3 - Red Hat is one of the most profitable parts of IBM.

4 - IBM has left the Product and Engineering teams independent. Because of #3 obviously.

5 - I use facts when forming my opinions

Red Hat is the most commercially successful Open Source company and perhaps the biggest proponent and prolific author of GPL software. They founded (created on purpose) one of the most successful community Linux distributions (Fedora)—a distribution with annoying dedication to free software (eg. codecs). Many of the “leaders” and “contributors” to Fedora are Red Hat employees. Red Hat of course does not make Fedora proprietary since having it be “community” led is a core part of their strategy.

Finally, you do not have to fear a Red Hat take over. Because it already happened.

Half the software (source code) you think of as GNU sits on servers Red Hat manages and controls. This is where that software is developed (not in Savannah—which is just a mirror). I am talking about GCC, Glibc, core utils. Etc.

Do you use systemd, pipewire, Wayland, Mesa, Podman, Cockpit, or Flatpak? Where did all this software come from? From the Free Software Foundation? University students? No, these are all part of the “Linux platform” as defined by Red Hat and they have swept us all along with them as they create it. You can probably add GNOME and GTK to the list at this point.

Has Debian moved to all these technologies? Why? Because of the FSF? No. Because of Red Hat.

Personally, I am ok with it. My core distro uses A LOT of software brought to me by Red Hat and I am thankful for it. But I avoid a lot of Red Hat software like GCC, Glibc, and systemd. But the replacements I use are also mostly corporately funded (Clang, MUSL, and dinit).

Your opponents. You do not get to decide who my allies and opponents are.

I agree with everything you are saying “for you”. It sounds like the GPL is the perfect choice for code that you wrote (assuming you wrote any).

But stop telling me what to think and do. Or, at least stop using the word “freedom” while you peddle your authoritarianism.

My philosophy is single. Those that wrote the code should get to choose the license. Many people prefer the collaboration that permissive licences allow. I do not oppose that.

Permissive license offer greater freedom to users of the code that already exists. The only benefit of copyleft is that it lets you demand future code that you did not write and that the authors do not want to Open Source. It is about restricting their freedom, not enhancing yours.

Permissive licenses provide all of the “4 freedoms” that the Free Software Foundation talks about. You cannot really talk about the differences between cooyleft and permissive as a “freedom” because they are not.

The name “permissive” kind of gives it away that permissive licenses offer more freedoms about what you can do with the code you were given.

Most Open Source software is written by corporations. The Open Source licenses are an advantage to them.

The biggest source of GPL software is probably Red Hat (IBM). They maintain most of what people think of when they think of GNU software and they wrote many of the newer GPL projects that everybody uses (like systemd).

The trend has been towards permissive licenses for a long time. The have led to more Open Source software, not less.

Look at Clang vs GCC. Clang attracts a greater diversity of corporate contribution and generates greater Open Source diversity. Zig and Rust appeared on LLVM for a reason.

What we should be worried about is the cloud. It allows big companies to outsell the little companies writing Open Source software. Neither permissive nor copyleft licenses prevent this.

Had to upgrade my wife as she could not use Zoom and I think Teams. Plus Office could not get final updates and even Numbers and Keynote wanted a newer version of macOS. I cannot remember what else.