Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ksec 1775 days ago
>> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust, from our perspective. It requires running software that is not free/libre (Visual Studio, or parts of Visual Studio Code), and Copilot is Service as a Software Substitute.

So they dont know / not sure of the question of GPL usage in copilot. But they have a problem with SaaS and product that are not open sourced?
2 comments
nonameiguess 1775 days ago
The entire purpose of the Free Software Foundation is that any product you offer to a user should be owned fully by the user, which means they should be able to take it apart, modify it to suit their specific needs, and put it back together. At minimum, that means they need to be able to see the source code and be able to build it themselves and run it on their own hardware.

So yes, closed-source software as a service is inherently unethical.

You don't have to agree with them, but they've been pretty consistent in this position for nearly 40 years. It's not exactly coming out of left field.

link
rightbyte 1775 days ago
There is no contradiction in that.
link
ksec 1775 days ago
I dont know. I guess I am not well versed with FSF. I thought they were to promote Free Software, I didn't know their world view was any non-open source software are "unacceptable and unjust".
link
tbrownaw 1775 days ago
Their origin story is Stallman being frustrated with a buggy printer driver that couldn't be fixed because it was proprietary.

It's told in this talk, you can search for "printer" to find it < https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt >.

They promote Free Software (and specifically copyleft over permissive licenses) because they view proprietary software as morally wrong and something that should not exist.

link
yakubin 1775 days ago
According to the FSF[1]:

> To release a nonfree program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this.

It paints a picture of a bigoted organisation.

[1]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAnd...>

link
diffeomorphism 1775 days ago
That sounds like the completely wrong word for that. The free software foundation advocates for free software, does not like non-free software, big surprise. Similarly fair trade does consider non-fair trade unethical. You might disagree with that but having an opinion does not make one a "bigot".
link
yakubin 1775 days ago
There is a difference between advocating for free software and saying that all non-free software is evil. To compare to the original meaning of "bigotry", there is a difference between talking about how great your religion is and talking about how all other religions are evil.
link
trasz 1775 days ago
Non-fair trade is considered unethical based on ethics. FSF considers closed source unethical based on their particular agenda, which has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
link
diffeomorphism 1775 days ago
> Non-fair trade is considered unethical based on ethics.

No, it is not. If it were, fair trade wouldn't be niche. It adds lots of other obligations on companies "based on their particular agenda". I think it is worthwhile goal and something I like to support, but won't pretend that it is somehow pure, self-evident goodness, just like non-fair trade is not pure evil.

Again, you might disagree or have different ideas what "free" is supposed to mean but you should be better than throwing around phrases like "agenda" or "nothing to do with ethics or morality".

link