The bad FSF

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008 schrieb simo:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 20:56 +0200, Guido Arnold wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I stumbled across this odd article: "All OSS Developers Are Equal, But
> > Some OSS Developers Are More Equal Than Others!" [1] where the FSF is
> > criticized for being unfair to software developers and failed to close
> > the "ASP Loophole".
> > 
> > For the authors of this article, the Affero GPL does not fix the
> > problem, because "GPL developers won't use it". Well, if so, why
> > should they switch to any other licence that addresses the problem?
> > 
> > And the accusation of unfairness goes in the same direction. They
> > blame the FSF to aggressively sue software developers who don't
> > provide the source code in their distribution, but don't sue google
> > for benefiting from Free Software without showing their sources.
> > 
> > I don't really see what they want to tell me beside that the FSF is
> > just a bunch of "extremists" who "deny the value of intellectual
> > property rights."
> > 
> > I am contemplating to write them, but it's probably not worth it. What
> > do you think?
> > 
> > 
> > [1] 
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=May&artYear=2008&EntryNo=8208
> 
> This is just junk, this is half hate speech, half straw man attack.
> The GPLv3 is compatible with Affero, (GPL v2 was not), so GPLv3 actually
> GOES into the direction of allowing people to close the ASP loophole,
> but it primarily give CHOICE to do so.
> The reason why Affero GPLv3 and GPLv3 are not one and the same license
> is because the FSF *listened* to the committees and interested parties,
> and most were not in favor of *forcibly* closing the so called ASP
> loophole.
> 
> Junk really not worth considering imo.
> 
> Simo.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 



Well, unfortunatly the article at stake looks like pure
lobbying, bullying or something like that. 

However, the one argument delivered is not to refute
that way IMO. Can't see that claimed loophole at all.

There is a fundamental difference between the right to
know the program running on your own computer and a
claimed right to know the sourcecode of programmes
running by others.

Open sources are a human right. Thats because people
are held responsible for what their computers do, so
they must have the right to know, to look into.

Quite different, if you query some server in the
net. It's the owner of that server who is responsible,
he must know the code, not you.

At least in first instance. 

So far is no reason to blame the FSF for that. 
Other reason may exist. :)


Greetings

Andreas Röhler