ID:2415314
 
Richard stallman tends to talk a lot about the freedom to modify code. In fact, in order for something to be considered "free as in freedom" software - access to the source code is a prerequisite.

Which got me thinking about BYOND's little habit of leaking literally every other game project--mostly anime rips--to other developers en masse

While I remember playing several shoddy rips a long time ago that added very little to the original project... some of them did add quite a few features and new content...which then also got shared and modified.

While it was certainly bad for the author...was source leaks possibly a good thing?

If someone else built on existing work in cool new ways : was it actually bad for the community? (copyright infringement aside)

To me it appears that the rip developers were basically unappreciated modders to a certain extent.
For reference:

The four essential freedoms
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]
  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
What's the point?
In my opinion, software is not free unless its license looks more like this, and less like this.

Free software is a privilege granted to you by its developer(s), not a right. It is the right of the developer(s) to choose whether or not to release the source code. Their right to not care supersedes the potential freedoms that could be granted to others.

The vast majority of "free" software licenses strongly disagree with this logic, and would prefer to induct any developers that use these licenses into their Orwellian cult of "freeness", while actually being anything but free.

Many "free" software licenses behave like contagious viruses, spreading from source to source, and from third party libraries to first party source by psychological manipulation. All of their members try to make you feel bad if you don't release your source code with their special brand of license. It's honestly disgusting.
From the perspective of the free software movement, the free is as in freedom, not as in free food. Free software is precisely that software that you can use and modify however you would like (e.g. under this perspective, BYOND is not free software). It's this that motivates the strictness of the GNU license, because it enforces the requirement that any person creating software that directly uses code under such a license must in turn be free software itself.

I think it's also ridiculous and itself manipulative to refer to this guilt tripping as "psychological manipulation". Perhaps in one sense it is, but in another you're violating copyright law by using software you have elected to use outside of the requirements of the contract you voluntarily entered into. The requirement that you must use the code another person has written in the way they consider free use to be is simply an expression of their legal rights under contract and copyright law. By electing to use such code, you have switche from "I have the privilege of releasing the code to this project if I so choose" to "I have a legal requirement to release this code because I have voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract to do so".

As an aside, I get the impression that you're not aware of the GNU Project's stance on selling free software, which can be boiled down to, "Charge as much as you want! We don't care."
In response to Popisfizzy
Popisfizzy wrote:
...software that you can use and modify however you would like...

...it enforces the requirement...

Indeed, it thoroughly contradicts itself.

I think it's also ridiculous and itself manipulative to refer to this guilt tripping as "psychological manipulation". Perhaps in one sense it is, but in another you're violating copyright law by using software you have elected to use outside of the requirements of the contract you voluntarily entered into. The requirement that you must use the code another person has written in the way they consider free use to be is simply an expression of their legal rights under contract and copyright law. By electing to use such code, you have switche from "I have the privilege of releasing the code to this project if I so choose" to "I have a legal requirement to release this code because I have voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract to do so".

Perhaps you were not aware of how third party notices are commonly included. Most free software tends to become some sort of nightmarish chimera of differently licensed parts. This presents an organizational challenge that slows productivity. To be completely responsible, you would have to go as far as to recursively license the third parties of the third parties, but I suspect this isn't actually done in practice. Isn't that hypocritical?

As an aside, I get the impression that you're not aware of the GNU Project's stance on selling free software, which can be boiled down to, "Charge as much as you want! We don't care."

I'm fully aware that "free" software is often sold. This was done with Red Hat Linux. I don't know all of the details of it, but I feel that is beyond the scope of what we are talking about here.
I think it's worth discussing the free software movement's ideas because it pertains to anyone involved in software.

It's also important to understand that ideally they want every piece of software to be free software. They want those specific freedoms and believe everyone should have those rights. To the free software movement : these should be rights, not privileges.

Specifically: freedom #3 interests me.

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

In a certain way I think this was demonstrated in the ripping community on BYOND. Was it great for authors? absolutely not. I am saying that overall it made things more interesting and enjoyable because "X" game didn't just die off and was updated, modified ect. ; the people who played those games benefited.
I also wonder if there was ever a profit incentive...

these projects were illegal to begin with. They were probably not designed with money in mind; they were passion projects.
I guess I'm saying that even though I didn't like every rip and they were usually poor quality, I was kinda glad they were there.

Things were...funner...because those games lived on past the initial work that the author did.

And I wonder if maybe the free software foundation has a point; that this type of thing should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged. (especially for non-profit projects)
In response to Orange55
Orange55 wrote:
It's also important to understand that ideally they want every piece of software to be free software. They want those specific freedoms and believe everyone should have those rights. To the free software movement : these should be rights, not privileges.

That's actually terrifying if they are really that delusional.

Specifically: freedom #3 interests me.

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

In the case of modding, the binary form is often all you need. With enough effort, you could reverse engineer a workable source code if you really wanted to. That isn't really the point though. I don't think it's fair to closed source developers to say that their software is any less free than that of open source developers, as long as that is what they intend. From the developer's perspective, the source code can become a burden rather than a freedom. Have you considered that maybe even free software can have trade secrets? Those secrets could not be kept in any way if the source was revealed.

In a certain way I think this was demonstrated in the ripping community on BYOND. Was it great for authors? absolutely not. I am saying that overall it made things more interesting and enjoyable because "X" game didn't just die off and was updated, modified ect. ; the people who played those games benefited.

BYOND's ripping community is not even remotely comparable to a modding community. While most of the "original" games were illegal to begin with, two wrongs don't make a right. It just made things even worse. These games were often ripped for all of the wrong reasons, often out of hatred for the ones who originally made them. Most of these ripping communities tend to share a common theme of disrespect for the original authors. In sharp contrast, mods are made in celebration of the great work of a developer.

And I wonder if maybe the free software foundation has a point; that this type of thing should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged. (especially for non-profit projects)

In that case, I think you are entirely missing the point of the Free Software Foundation, which does NOT encourage the illegal use of software, free or otherwise. I hope that isn't what you are implying.
I am implying that if "free of charge" software was also "free as in freedom" software then the community (the world) could benefit from collective development and changes.

(free of charge) Software that was great and simply abandoned by their authors could be picked up again.

And Trade secrets... a term that basically means "don't copy my super secret algorithms!" I'll simply say I disagree with the idea of trade secrets because they hamper progress and innovation.

And I wonder if maybe the free software foundation has a point; that this type of thing should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged. (especially for non-profit projects)
In that case, I think you are entirely missing the point of the Free Software Foundation, which does NOT encourage the illegal use of software, free or otherwise. I hope that isn't what you are implying.
Also, I am suggesting that they are encouraging community development of software : not illegal behavior.
In response to Multiverse7
Multiverse7 wrote:
Indeed, it thoroughly contradicts itself.

Sometimes maximizing an idea necessitates banishing a possibility that one would otherwise expect. E.g., in a tolerant society we must be intolerant of intolerance. Or if we want to imagine some fantastical setting where every possible universe exists, we must admit that a universe where this assumption is false is not a possibility or else we reach contradiction. This is much the same: if we want to maximize the extent to which an individual use and modify the resulting software however they like, then we must specify this as one aspect where you can not do whatever you like. If this is not enforced, then the ultimate goal becomes immediately impotent.

This presents an organizational challenge that slows productivity.

Is this simply an unsubstantiated claim of hypotheticals, or can you actually talk about where it's had a meaningful impact? If it's really that big of an issue, then why not simply restrict these projects to a single license? If they wanted to, they could simply implement functionality from third party code themselves instead of dealing with this issue, though I expect this is probably a much slower task than using code under the original license... which sort of nullifies your point?

Ultimately they are making the decision to either use multiple licenses or modify an existing project already mired in such a situation. Assuming there is actually a slowdown from this process I'm certainly far less sympathetic to a problem you've reached by your own decision making processes when you're fully aware of the result.

Isn't that hypocritical?

If you can explain why, maybe I would see your point-of-view on why it's hypocritical. At the moment, I don't see why third parties failing to license things correctly constitutes hypocrisy of the free software movement.
In response to Orange55
Orange55 wrote:
I am implying that if "free of charge" software was also "free as in freedom" software then the community (the world) could benefit from collective development and changes.

That sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me. Would you actually like to force developers to release their source code against their will? How could such an impossible goal be achieved? Is that not a violation of their rights and privacy?

(free of charge) Software that was great and simply abandoned by their authors could be picked up again.

Most of the existing open source licenses already allow this. What more are you asking for?

And Trade secrets... a term that basically means "don't copy my super secret algorithms!" I'll simply say I disagree with the idea of trade secrets because they hamper progress and innovation.

Guess what? You can't have my super secret algorithms, and there's nothing you can do about it! Trade secrets don't hamper progress and innovation, they promote it. It gives people something to strive for, rely on, and invest in. Trade secrets have shaped the economy of the modern world to be what it is. Without them, the world would be much more austere and underdeveloped than it is. Just as an individual has rights to privacy, a business has rights to secrecy.
In response to Popisfizzy
Popisfizzy wrote:
Multiverse7 wrote:
Indeed, it thoroughly contradicts itself.

Sometimes maximizing an idea necessitates banishing a possibility that one would otherwise expect. E.g., in a tolerant society we must be intolerant of intolerance. Or if we want to imagine some fantastical setting where every possible universe exists, we must admit that a universe where this assumption is false is not a possibility or else we reach contradiction. This is much the same: if we want to maximize the extent to which an individual use and modify the resulting software however they like, then we must specify this as one aspect where you can not do whatever you like. If this is not enforced, then the ultimate goal becomes immediately impotent.

That's certainly a very interesting topic, but it seems to me that this "paradox of tolerance" is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. It presents a hypothetical straw man that when recognized as valid, becomes a Frankenstein monster through sheer psychological influence. I'm not entirely sure how you are connecting this with the free software movement.

This presents an organizational challenge that slows productivity.

Is this simply an unsubstantiated claim of hypotheticals, or can you actually talk about where it's had a meaningful impact? If it's really that big of an issue, then why not simply restrict these projects to a single license? If they wanted to, they could simply implement functionality from third party code themselves instead of dealing with this issue, though I expect this is probably a much slower task than using code under the original license... which sort of nullifies your point?

Ultimately they are making the decision to either use multiple licenses or modify an existing project already mired in such a situation. Assuming there is actually a slowdown from this process I'm certainly far less sympathetic to a problem you've reached by your own decision making processes when you're fully aware of the result.

It should be apparent that the use of third-party notices is the norm, not the exception. The web is littered with them, and everyone comes up with their own style of writing them out. It would be nice if there was at least some form of simplified, standardized format, similar to citations. Writing software should be as simple as writing a book.

Very often, the resource you need falls under a different license, and might be too complex to be worth reinventing, so the obvious solution is to simply license it separately. Why reinvent the wheel? That would be like writing a whole other book, rather than citing an existing one.

Isn't that hypocritical?

If you can explain why, maybe I would see your point-of-view on why it's hypocritical. At the moment, I don't see why third parties failing to license things correctly constitutes hypocrisy of the free software movement.

It's hard to see the forest through the trees. Let's say we have two software libraries "A" and "B". Software library "B" includes a separately licensed "B1". If software library "A" includes "B" under a separate license, must they also provide a notice for "B1" at that level, or does the license sort of degrade and get lost in the mix? None of the free software licenses seem to have an official stance on this issue, and everyone just tends to assume that the license for a subcomponent doesn't matter as much. That is the hypocrisy, or maybe a better term would be negligence.
In response to Multiverse7
When it comes to trade secrets my biggest beef is that if you as an individual have knowledge that is considered "a secret" not even you can use it...even if you keep it a secret.

This was the case when steve jobs was sued over "trade secrets" when he created NeXT. No one should have to go through a legal battle just for programming an algorithm. If I have knowledge, I should be allowed to share it and use it how I please. (within the context of other laws)

The idea that I would be restricted from practicing software development because I worked with a software company once is insane to me.

(here's a link to the steve jobs thing)

In my opinion, algorithms should not be considered property.

I consider programs and algorithms to be similar to recipes. Once you know a recipe, you should be allowed to use it.
In response to Orange55
Orange55 wrote:
The idea that I would be restricted from practicing software development because I worked with a software company once is insane to me.

What's really insane is signing a non-disclosure agreement without carefully reading exactly what it says.

(here's a link to the steve jobs thing)

That's an interesting bit of history, but I'm no legal expert and I don't know the details of that case, so I don't really have an opinion on it.

In my opinion, algorithms should not be considered property.

I consider programs and algorithms to be similar to recipes. Once you know a recipe, you should be allowed to use it.

Programs are like recipe books, while algorithms are like recipes. That is a very big distinction. There is also a difference between an algorithm itself, and a specific implementation of an algorithm.
In response to Multiverse7
I'd be very sad if I couldn't implement a bubble sort algorithm because some jack off says it's his companies "trade secret"
In response to Orange55
A trade secret is necessarily something kept secret. Both having an independent knowledge of this algorithm and them sending you a C&D on the basis of this algorithm being a trade secret would probably damage their claim that it's actually a secret.