i think the problem that i have with the AGPL which I could never truly articulate is that it's not *free software* in the sense that it's designed to protect your freedoms. it's anti-profit-ware. the AGPL *takes away* your freedom to start an application service provider—every other free software license *preserves* your rights. the AGPL *restricts* them. there's nothing wrong with the "ASP loophole", it's not a bug, and doesn't need to be fixed. let people profit from their private modifications.
@sneak you still have the freedom to provide service. why must your modifications remain private instead of being shared back with the application you are profiting from?
@trwnh because the profit must necessarily come from one's own hard work and the changes, otherwise others would be able to no-effort eat your lunch. you don't have the freedom to provide service without state violence being used to force you to share *your own* code that you *do not want to*.
the notion that human beings that start businesses using free software *owe something* to the people who wrote that software is madness, and is not what free software is about.
@trwnh if i take free software and modify it and run it on *my own computer* then it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone should be able to force me to share those modifications. nobody is forced to connect to my private-modification computer. they choose to.
@sneak it's not no-effort if others are doing the same work. if they can do it more efficiently, so what?
the foundation of gpl is the virality -- it is a legal hack to spread itself. we can talk about "state violence" being the only way to actually enforce it, but that's kind of beside the point. nothing is ipso-facto enforcable.
@sneak then again, the idea that you can profit from free software without giving anything back is kind of the fundamental flaw of free software in the first place... this is why i prefer a digital commons way of thinking. you should not feel "forced" to offer back modifications. you should want to do so, for the benefit of everyone.
@trwnh intellectual property is a lie. if i get paid tuesday for singing a song you wrote on monday, i owe you nothing. being able to profit given available free tools isn’t a flaw, it’s a feature.
@sneak intellectual property is a lie, but that's not related. it's not a question of ownership. if anything, you shouldn't be able to privately own the modifications. you can choose to keep them secret, or you can share them for the benefit of everyone.
@trwnh intellectual property being a lie means you can’t own software or be entitled to value produced by other people using that software because even if you wrote it it is no more yours than the number 2 is yours
@sneak yes, and those modifications are not "yours" either. by that logic it follows that if one wants to profit then they will simply keep all code a trade secret, and now we are back to proprietary software.
@trwnh sure, but the secret of the modifications is mine by natural law until i tell someone.
@trwnh i don’t own the modifications but compelling me to divulge a secret is the same kind of evil as compelling me to divulge encryption keys. it’s non consensual.
@sneak those are not the same thing. encryption keys are personal, not privatized.
@trwnh group identity is also a lie, and with it public property, and if you don’t believe me, try marching on area 51 as a us citizen.
@sneak have you tried not using a propertarian framework at all?
on principle, it is better to share software than to keep it secret. not sure what area 51 or the usa has to do with anything.
@trwnh often keeping things secret is hugely beneficial.
@sneak and the point of agpl is to compel you to release those modifications as free software.
just like the point of gpl is to compel you to release non-networked modifications as free software.
the whole point of *gpl existing is create a legal framework for challenging privatization of modifications.
@trwnh ehh, i think they are orthogonal. networked services on my computer are not software on your computer, and you can’t treat them as if they are. i am all for free software. i am also all for hands off of my machine, which agpl is decidedly not.
@sneak if agpl gets you to not run privatized modifications on your machine, then it has served its purpose.
@trwnh it does not; i eagerly await being sued for violating agpl because i believe it to be unenforceable.
@trwnh this is a hill i will happily die on, agpl is *not* free as in freedom software. it’s anti-capitalist software, which is totally different.
@sneak it is about as unenforceable as any other license, which is to say, you need very deep pockets to afford lawyers or else it's effectively meaningless.
this is not unique to the agpl. it is a property of copyright itself.
@trwnh no, gpl is quite enforceable and *has been enforced*. i don’t think agpl will be the same way.
@trwnh what i do on my own machine is nobody’s business but my own, full stop. nobody else is owed anything as a result of what i do on and with my own machine. any claim otherwise is nonsensical.
@sneak cool, but it would be *better* to share, which is the whole point of free software, or else you might as well just keep everything proprietary and closed-source.
@trwnh software is just text files, and it is not implicitly always better to share all the text files on your machines, no. database dumps, for example. secrets and keeping them have value. privacy advocates seem to get this. source code isn’t property and “sharing” is the wrong term. modifications are a secret until that secret is blown. blowing that secret is not always a benefit.
@sneak once again: there is a difference between "software" and "text files". to reduce it purely to the container makes no sense.
source code represents work and labor. you can share (yes, it is the right word) that work with others, or you can keep it to yourself. a world in which everyone shares all software is better than a world in which everyone keeps all software privatized. you can't conflate software with PII.
@trwnh all agpl does vs normal gpl is force people to do things they don’t want to do, in a circumstance where it is not remotely reasonable to do so. nobody who writes free software is owed anything by nature of having written and released it, regardless of others profiting using those now-free tools (which were never yours)
masto instance for the tildeverse